asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all imported electrical appliances are wired in accordance with the British Standards Colour Code.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made towards the adoption of the European code of coloured cables for domestic electrical appliances; and whether he will either prohibit the importation of foreign appliances or introduce regulations to impose informative markings on all such appliances, until such time as an international agreement is concluded.

My right hon. Friend understands that there are good prospects of final agreement on a new European standard during this month. He has no powers at present to impose such prohibitions or regulations as the hon. Member suggests; the recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection in this and other respects are now under consideration by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Board of Trade.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that he appears to be shockingly complacent about this matter? Does he not realise that the interim Report of the Molony Committee suggests that the present danger is particularly grave and that at least one fatality and some near misses have already occurred because of the difference in the wiring of these appliances compared with our own? Does he not know that accidents do not arise from misuse or carelessness or inexpert tinkering with devices but because of the genuine confusion caused by this wiring? Will he treat the matter as extremely urgent and not await the international agreement of which he spoke?

The forcefulness of the Committee's remarks on this topic is recognised, but the matter cannot be considered in isolation from the recommendations on general legislation. The hon. Member cannot have heard me correctly when I said that it was hoped that these international negotiations would be completed this month.

If it is impossible for the Board of Trade to make importers put informative markings on the equipment they import until agreement on European standards is reached, is it possible for the Board of Trade to have consultations with the importers, or their trade associations, to try to get some satisfactory voluntary arrangements about informative markings?

That is a very good suggestion and I should like to look into it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up a national council for consumer protection and information.

My right hon. Friend will consider this possibility in the light of the advice which the Committee on Consumer Protection eventually offers him.

While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I urge on him the need, with the onset of commercial television, to appreciate that consumers are in ever-increasing danger of being misled by the kind of advertising pressure to which they are subjected? Will he carefully bear in mind the present conditions?

I will certainly do that.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long his right hon. Friend is likely to be before finally considering the recommendations of the interim Report?

No. Conversations between officials in the Home Department and my Department are taking place.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the main recommendation of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection, contained in paragraph 43 of its Interim Report to him

My right hon. Friend cannot yet add to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) on 27th April.

I realise that these consultations take time. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread desire that the Interim Report should be implemented as quickly as possible? How long does he expect that the conversations between his Department and the Home Office will continue? As a first step, will the Government support the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill which is to come before this House?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that consultations with a number of interests and a good deal of careful thought are needed before the detailed implications of the Committee's main recommendations—for legislation giving general powers to make regulations—can be assessed. We shall proceed as speedily as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the nature of representations he has received from the chemical industry for an increased import duty on ethanediol;

The United Kingdom manufacturers of ethanediol have applied for the imposition of an antidumping duty on imports of this material from the United States on the grounds that it is being sold here at dumped prices and that this is causing them material injury. Those interested have been given an opportunity, in accordance with normal practice, of submitting comments to my Department in confidence and these are now being examined.

I hope that when examining this application, the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the fact that until this year the three applicants were very large importers of this product from the United States of America and that an American firm has started a plant in this country. I hope that anti-dumping legislation will not be used in the way suggested in a trade war between two American combines to the disadvantage of the British consumer.

The application is being examined against three criteria which are laid down in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. They are, first, whether dumping is taking place, secondly, whether it is causing or threatening material injury to the United Kingdom industry and, if so, thirdly, whether an anti-dumping duty would be in the national interest.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to secure a tenant for the new advance factory at Coatbridge, who will provide employment for large numbers.

This factory has been brought to the attention of many industrialists who have consulted the Board of Trade about their expansion plans. All our regional offices know of the factory and mention it to enquirers; several have been shown around.

As the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have difficulty about rinding a suitable tenant for this factory, will he consider introducing the concessional rents which apply in Northern Ireland, with a view to attracting industry to the area, particularly the factory concessional rents directing or stimulating public enterprise to come to the rescue of this part of Scotland?

The question of concessional rents is altogether another matter. The factory is still under construction and it is not expected to be completed until August. I hope that by then we will have found a tenant.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to fulfil his promise to provide 25,000 extra jobs in Scotland during the lifetime of this Parliament; and what proposals he has to provide employment for the remaining 67,000 unemployed.

It is now estimated that from factory buildings or extensions recently completed, under construction, and approved but not yet started, over 25,000 new jobs will be provided. I appreciate there is still a long way to go, but this is I think a satisfactory start.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that to tell us that there are 25,000 employment opportunities with 90,000 unemployed is most unsatisfactory? Will he take the necessary steps to stimulate the drive in order to end Scotland's unemployment problems?

We will do our best to stimulate expansion in Scotland. I point out that unemployment in Scotland has gone down from 91,000—the figure the hon. Gentleman has in mind—to 85,000 last month.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those jobs which he hopes will be provided through industrial buildings which are to be completed in the next few years are extra jobs? Will not many thousands, if not all of them, be in the room of jobs which will disappear in the same period?

Some will be replacements in the sense of new creations, but the question is misleading in implying that all these jobs will come through the application of the I.D.C. policy, leaving out of account any improvements which there might be in the tourist industry, for instance, in certain service industries, in offices and so on.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates have been issued in the Bishop Auckland district since 7th March, 1960.

One industrial development certificate was issued for this area from 7th March to 5th May, 1960.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that 2,000 of my constituents are unemployed and have been for a considerable time owing to the contraction in the coal industry and in the railway industry in my constituency, and does not he think that his Answer is totally unsatisfactory?

More remains to be done, I agree. In addition to the recent issue, three industrial building schemes are under construction and the expected total employment from the four schemes, one of which is Government-financed, should be about 470 jobs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what Governments he has approached to treat British coal exports fairly since 1st March, 1960.

We are in touch with the authorities in Belgium and Federal Germany regarding improved facilities for the import of United Kingdom coal into those countries.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman tackle the problem of exports by agreement with Poland and also exports to Scandinavia much more energetically? Does not he realise that this way of developing trade would be far better for my constituency than the issue of I.D.Cs?

As a matter of commercial policy we do not favour inter-Governmental arrangements with Poland, or any other country, to share markets or fix prices. Such agreements are not in our general interest as an exporting country.

Is the Minister aware that what happened in the 1930s is happening again in the 1960s, and that Polish coal is being dumped at less than cost? Is he saying that the Government are having no discussions with the Polish Government about that situation?

I have already said that discussions with various Governments are taking place.

Is Poland included?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the letter sent to him on 26th April by Newcast Foundries Ltd., Silver-dale, Newcastle-under-Lyme, concerning factors jeopardising their production programme; and what reply he sent.

The writer of the letter has been informed that the release of soldiers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if he read the letter carefully, he would realise that this is the general problem of the call-up of apprentices on the completion of their apprenticeship? As he represents the Department concerned with promoting the export trade and maintaining the level of industrial production, would he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in order to make strong repre- sentations to him that where the call-up of an apprentice on the completion of his apprenticeship will interfere with important production the Minister of Labour should do something to stop it?

The National Service of these two men was deferred. The deferment came to an end and they joined the Army on 16th April, 1959, and 7th January, 1960, respectively. The general arguments in the letter do not convince my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that there is any need to intervene with the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage increase or decrease in the quantity and cost of imports of milk powder and condensed milk in 1959, as compared with 1958.

The percentage increases in imports of milk powder and condensed and evaporated milk, were 71 per cent. and 136 per cent. by quantity and 80 per cent. and 133 per cent. by value.

Does my hon. Friend realise that these figures are not very hepful to the Milk Marketing Board which is trying to sell more milk in this country at a time when more milk is being produced? Will he look at this matter to see whether we can reintroduce a quota such as existed before 1959?

Milk production in this country is a subject more for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what effect the new financial restrictions will have on the number of industrial projects he expects to be started in the county of Durham during the next twelve months;

There is no evidence that the recently announced credit controls will adversely affect the industrial projects which are in hand or in prospect for the administrative County of Durham. According to the firms concerned, these should provide at lease 10,000 new jobs during the next few years.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is not trying to fob us off with that reply. May I ask whether he has had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the possible insulating of the whole of the north-east area from the full effects of the credit squeeze, because he knows as well as anyone that the real intention behind the credit squeeze is to do exactly the opposite of what he says he intends to do? Is he aware of the urgency of the need for such consultations before matters get worse? Is he aware that, even on the present basis, we understand that there is every likelihood that within the next fourteen years 27,500 people will leave the County of Durham in search of work— and that is quite a lot of people? Does he realise that, if he has not had these consultations already, the reply he has given is a complete mockery?

I am aware of the serious situation in the north-east of England. I should point out that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the recent credit controls he said that these, together with the Budget, would act as a check on the tendencies making for overstrain in the economy and would not prevent the continuance of a sound and steady expansion within the resources of the country. We are trying to divert more to the export field rather than to over-stimulate home demand.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received to date for financial assistance under the Local Employment Act; which localities are concerned; what is the estimated financial assistance given up to the latest convenient date; and, where loans have been made, what is the sum involved and the interest charges.

Of the 134 applications now under consideration, the five which are for building grants under Section 3 of the Act are from England. Of the 129 applications for grants and loans under Section 4, 38 are from England, 22 from Wales and 69 from Scotland. So far offers of assistance totalling £56,000 have been made in three cases, the terms and conditions of which are confidential between the applicant and the Board of Trade.

I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confide to the House the interest rates charged today, because I think it is in the interests of the House as a whole that this confidential information should be given to Parliament.

These negotiations between industry and the Government are confidential transactions and have always been so regarded. This raises an important point of principle. We have never divulged, for example, the names of those in receipt of agricultural subsidies, and, for that matter, the principle is applied right through all the schemes for Government assistance. Were we to reveal the amounts given and the terms on which they are given or loaned, that might operate against the effective implementation of the Local Employment Act and frustrate the purpose of making the loans.

Although there is a good argument against giving exact details of individual transactions with the names of firms, is there any reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should not give the average rate of interest, for instance, of all the loans which we have been granted without giving any names of firms?

I will bear that point in mind, but, as I have indicated, we intend to lay an annual report in general terms before the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that his powers in respect of industrial development certificates are adequate for carrying out Government policy of obtaining a proper balance and distribution of industry throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as I described it in the debate on 23rd February, and my right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to make a further statement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that policy was criticised then, and since then events have been such that there is considerable concern in areas where unemployment is high that new industrial development is being allowed in areas which are relatively prosperous industrially? Will he adopt a policy of much more positive control, as suggested by the Scottish T.U.C., in respect of I.D.C.s and give greater priority to areas of greater need?

I explained during the debate that we divide the whole country roughly—

Roughly?

—into three areas. In one area we try to steer industry by means of I.D.C.s and Government help which is available. In another area, we try to prevent any industrial development taking place except in the most exceptional circumstances; and then there are the "grey" areas where industrial development certificates will normally be granted. Each case is considered on its merits.

Such as Maidenhead?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the estimated effect of the recently announced credit restrictions on industrial development in Scotland.

There is no evidence that the recently announced credit controls will have any adverse effect on industrial development in Scotland.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the purpose of credit restriction? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make clear in his announcement that the purpose was to check overstrain on the economy. Surely that was to curb industrial development? As it is generally assumed that this would be the effect, why on earth was it necessary and for what purpose was it necessary to impose any restriction in Scotland? I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was anxious to stimulate industrial development in Scotland.

I thought I made clear that there was no question of controls to prevent the continuance of sound and steady expansion within our resources, and that any fall in home demand, whether in England or in Scotland, could be offset by a rise in exports.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recollect the booklet which was recently issued by his Department entitled "Expanding Industry"? Will he relate the Answer he has just given to the terms of loans in that document? Are those loans now to be varied and variable? Are some to be treated in one way and some in another and, if so, is not that unfair?

I think that is another question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as modified by Part II of the Local Employment Act, 1960, he has granted an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor assembly plant at Basildon, Essex, costing £10 million.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he had no consultations with the Development Corporation of Glenrothes, Fife, before sanctioning the Ford development in Basildon;

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of Cumbernauld, Dunbartonshire, before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million factory in the new town of Basildon, Essex.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent, before deciding to permit the building by the Ford Motor Company of a new £10 million tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, he first consulted with the Minister of Labour on the sources from which it was proposed to attract the additional labour likely to be required to man the new factory at Basildon and the extended works at Dagenham.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland before making his decision to grant an industrial development certificate for the construction by the Ford Motor Company of a £10 million tractor factory at Basildon in Essex.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with the corporation of the new town of East Kilbride in Lanarkshire before deciding to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company to build a £10 million tractor factory in the new town of Basildon in Essex.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in view of the abnormal unemployment in Scotland, indicate the circumstances that led him to grant an industrial development certificate to the Ford Motor Company for a new tractor factory at Basildon.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which sites were drawn to the attention of the Ford Motor Company when consideration was being given by the firm to the building of its proposed £10 million tractor plant.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new jobs likely to be created at the Ford Motor works in Dagenham as a result of the extensions and developments to be carried through at those works in consequence of the company's concentration of tractor production at Basildon.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated number of persons likely to be employed at the new £10 million tractor factory to be erected by the Ford Motor Company at Basildon in Essex.

With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37—[Interruption.]—39, 53, 54, and 55 together.

There was so much noise that I could not hear the list of further Questions which the Minister enumerated. I ask the House to keep order.

The Questions 1 propose to answer together are Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 53, 54, and 55.

On a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary, like his right hon. Friend a week ago, said, "With permission", but is it not a contempt of this House and of hon. Members to attempt to give one Answer to a series of Questions which raise very different matters? It seems to us that it will be quite impossible to get proper information in reply to these Questions if only one Answer is given. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary be asked to answer each Question individually?

The hon. Member was addressing me on a point of order, but I am afraid that the position is exactly the same as it was when I ruled on it on the last Scottish Questions day. No circumstance, as far as I know, has changed.

On a point of order. These Questions cover a very wide range of subject matter. May I ask if you could rule that they should be taken at the end of Questions and that a special statement should be made on what in fact is a very large subject, so that we may have an opportunity much more fully to get answers to our varied Questions on this subject?

The hon. Member can ask me with great courtesy to do that, but he knows I have no power to do anything of the kind.

Further to that point of order. What redress have we as Members of this House when a Minister informs us—

Raise it in the Scottish Grand Committee.

I should prefer it if hon. Members would address me one at a time.

In spite of foolish protests by hon. Members opposite who have no knowledge of the severity of unemployment in our country, I again ask what redress have we as ordinary Members of this House when a Minister proposes to answer a great many Questions together, Questions which raise very different points?

I think the hon. Lady will remember that I was concerned about this and went into it on a parallel occasion. I am afraid the true answer, assuming that the Minister has prepared one Answer to all the Questions, is that if the Answer does not properly cover all the points in the several Questions then the unanswered parts should be subject to further questioning by hon. Members.

May I put a rather different, but, I think, related point? If you look at the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the next Question is put by an hon. Member from the North-East. If the Minister is allowed to answer generally a number of Questions, some of which in normal circumstances would not be reached, that will rule out the possibility of Questions relating to Durham being asked by hon. Members who are equally concerned with the unemployment problem. That could lead to some abuse on the part of Ministers. Could you think about some possible safeguards in the interests of hon. Members who put down Questions with a great prospect in ordinary circumstances of getting them answered orally?

I appreciate the point. If I saw anything which looked like an abuse, I should feel concerned to consider it. I hope I may, with courtesy, point out that the best way of getting Questions answered is not to have a repetition of Rulings I made a short time ago on this point.

I wonder if you could consider one aspect of this matter? If we are to have a recurrence of the situation in which ten or a dozen Questions are answered by a Minister in this way, will it not become farcical? What is the use of having an Order Paper? Would it not be better to have merely one Question with ten or a dozen names attached to it? Will you consider that with a view to protecting the rights of hon. Members?

I shall certainly protect hon. Members' rights if I conceive that they are being in any way abused, in accordance with the practice of the House, but I do not think that hon. Members' rights are being abused.

If the convenience of the House is to be considered —and it is that more than the wish of the Minister to answer a number of Questions together that we should consider—would it not be more convenieat when a Minister decides to take this course to answer all these Questions at the end of Question Time, so that there may be an opportunity for all the hon. Members who have put down the relevant Questions to put supplementary questions without impeding those hon. Members who have Questions later in the list?

I do not think the hon. and learned Member was here—I cannot remember—when I pointed out last time that the practical alternative when refusing the Minister permission would be that he should repeat the same Answer over and over again. I really do not think that would help very much.

Have we poor English Members no rights at all? In view of the fact that there are at least four times more English than Scottish Members, could you not protect the point of view and right of English Members who want to hear the Prime Minister?

My view is that the interests of all hon. Members would best be protected if we ceased to have further points of order.

I do not wish to raise a point of order—[Interruption.]—I shall not take that from the hon. Member opposite—

Order. The hon. Member must address his remarks to the Chair.

I was replying to a remark from the other side of the House, but I wish to remind the Chair that we are entitled to protection from the impertinent remarks of a young fellow on the other side of the House.

I did not hear any remark. No doubt it was loud enough, but I was wondering what the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) was about to ask.

I wished to ask a simple question to make certain whether the Parliamentary Secretary included Question No. 33 in the list.

Question No. 33 was not included; it gets a separate Answer.

As a "Sudeten Scot", may I put a further point? You said, Mr. Speaker, that if these Questions were not answered together the Minister would have to repeat the same Answer. May I point out that the only common factor in these Questions is that they mention the Ford Motor Company, but they deal with entirely different points. Each Question, so far as I can see, deals with a completely different point and there would be no question of the Minister having to repeat the same Answer.

It is my fault for venturing to use some phrase to try to get on, but I think we had better hear the Answer. If it is incomplete and unsatisfactory, hon. Members can deal with it in due course.

An industrial development certificate has not yet been issued as negotiations between the Ford Motor Company and the Board of Trade have not yet been completed.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the Ford Motor Company has made a similar promise in the past, when an I.D.C. has been granted, that the labour force would not be increased? Will he tell us what has been the change in the labour force since the I.D.C. was granted on an earlier occasion? Will he tell the House whether, in compiling his increase of 25,000 jobs in Scotland over the next five years, he did not add the figure for the number of workers expected to be employed in other new establishments, whereas here he is claiming that the number of workers to be employed in 1 million additional square feet of factory space will not lead to an increase in employment in the area? Will he tell us how he reconciles those two statements? Is it not a fact that under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act the President of the Board of Trade is obliged to take into account the better distribution of the industry of the country as a whole before he issues an industrial development certificate? Does not the issue of a certificate here run counter to all that was said by the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend during the passage of the Local Employment Act?

In answer to the first part of the question, I 'have no knowledge that any previous figures quoted by the Ford Motor Company have proved to be inaccurate. I would point out that the increase in employment at Basildon will be offset by a similar reduction in employment at Dagenham, and there should therefore be no overall increase in the district.

What remedies lie in the hands of the Department if, consequent to the granting of the I.D.C. on the basis that there will be no increase in the numbers employed, there is in fact an increase in the numbers employed? Is there any machinery which the hon. Member can use to safeguard the interests of such places as Scotland?

There may be a temporary increase during the transitional period, but it is expected to stabilise at the present figure in that area. The only sanction we have, if the Ford Motor Company does not keep its promise, is to take account of that when it applies for future I.D.C.s.

I understand from the hon. Member's statement that the I.D.C. has not been issued. He has not answered my Question, No. 30. I asked whether he had consulted the Cumbernauld new town and the boards before issuing an I.D.C. and had pointed out to the Ford Motor Company the desirability of establishing new industries in the new town of Cumbernauld. Did the President of the Board of Trade consult the Cumbernauld new town when he was considering industrial expansion?

We cannot consult every local authority in the country or every new town before granting I.D.Cs. The decision to approve the Ford package plan, if I may call it that, as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and the President of the Board of Trade acted in concert with his colleagues. There is, therefore, no question of his having overlooked the interests of Scotland, of not having acted in concert with the Minister of Labour or of not having taken into consideration the views of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Hannan.

Question No. 34.

No. I was calling the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question.

On a point of order.

On a point of order. Before you come to the next Question, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that you indicated that you might consider the practice of answering a large number of Questions together and the possibility of its being abused in certain circumstances? May I respectfully suggest that it would be of help to the House as a whole if you would consider the point and indicate on what grounds you considered that to be the case?

I would rather not have a shot at it now—

Not now.

—because there might be a large number of hypothetical circumstances. I was seeking to allow supplementary questions to be asked by those hon. Members whose Questions were comprised in this Answer.

May I make a point of order before I ask a supplementary question? My Question has not been answered, as the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has not been answered, either. If you look at the Order Paper more closely, Mr. Speaker, you will see that a number of Questions which have apparently been included in this comprehensive embrace have in fact not specifically been answered. Therefore, I am merely rising, in being called to put a supplementary question, to ask my Question. Surely it is very much against the interests of the House that I should have to rise to ask the same thing twice.

In the discussions which my right hon. Friend and I had with the Ford Motor Company, obviously we discussed all the various attractions of the sites available in all the development districts.

Which sites?

We do not find these answers of any help. May I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary? How is it that if the B.M.C., which is to build a tractor factory in the Lothians to cost £8 million, is to provide 6,500 jobs, the factory to be built at Basildon to cost £10 million is not to provide any additional jobs at all?

There is a redeployment of resources within the present labour force.

In view of the doubts expressed on this side of the House, will the Minister tell us how it is possible for such a large amount of money as is to be spent on the factory to provide no additional jobs? Will he consider giving us a full account within a very short period of the method by which the Ford Motor Company proposes to make this possible without further employment? In addition, since he has not answered my Question, either, about consultation with the new town of East Kilbride, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the regional offices of the Board of Trade are fully aware of the immense difficulties of the new towns in Scotland, with their large populations of young people and with little prospect of finding employment for them? Is he satisfied that the attention of industrialists is being adequately drawn to their needs?

I am perfectly satisfied that the Controller for Scotland is well aware of all the factors which the hon. Lady has brought to my attention. I am afraid that the details of the Ford scheme must remain in the possession of the Ford Company. I cannot divulge them

With respect, the Minis-has not answered my Question, No. 55, either. It appears that he has tried to evade it. In his general Answer he said that the number of new jobs to be created at Basildon would be offset by the number of redundancies at Dagenham. He must, therefore, know how many new jobs are to be created and can therefore answer the Question.

I am afraid that I am not able to divulge that figure, although I know it

Is not my hon. Friend in error in talking about the Dagenham-Basildon area, since these two places are about twelve miles apart and Basildon by its very nature is a new town with a green belt around it? Is he not in error in talking as though they were the same area?

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

Order. The interests of all hon. Members depend on making progress and not noises instead.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the collectivised Answer to a number of individual questions, I beg to give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Further to that point of order. I am sure that in a fair-minded way, quite apart from the context and the argument about all these Questions, you will recognise, at least on reflection, that there has been an abuse by the Minister of this comprehensive technique. I submit, at least for your consideration as a matter of order, that this should be looked into a little further with the interests of hon. Members such as myself in mind. After having tabled Questions in good faith, we are still without the answers to our specific Questions because of the comprehensive nature of the answering.

I follow the point which the hon. Member puts to me, but I ruled about the substance of this quite a short time ago. I think that it was the last day on which Scottish Questions were taken.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Question No. 22 was being answered with other Questions, you were heard to call my name specially in connection with it. On going to the Table, I noticed that Question No. 34 was included with the other Questions that were answered. May I now be permitted to ask Question 34?

Yes—for a curious reason. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rising to ask a supplementary question, and did, in fact, call him. He lost the opportunity because he did not understand, and I think that it is fair to allow him to ask it now. Mr. Hannan.

Question 34—

No, I am afraid that we shall get this wrong unless the hon. Gentleman conforms. He is really asking a supplementary question in respect of Question No. 34.

Then did the Minister have consultations with the Minister of Labour? If he did, to what extent did he have those consultations, and with what areas from which labour might be obtained were those consultations concerned?

As I explained in answer to another supplementary question, the decision to approve the Ford plan as a whole was taken by Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is a prominent member of the Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the dates when industrial development certificates to build the proposed £10 million Ford tractor factory at Basildon, Essex, were applied for and granted.

The I.D.C. for the new factory at Basildon was applied for on 21st April, 1960, but, as I have explained, it has not yet been issued. The company was informed when the Ford plans for Merseyside were announced that the Government approved of its development projects as a whole.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that all the promises made during the General Election on new legislation and on a much stricter use of industrial development certificates now appear to Scottish people as just a great deal of eyewash? Is he not aware that if an industrial development certificate had been refused on a project such as this and the claims of Scotland had been put forcibly, that would indeed have shown to the people that perhaps there was some integrity in this Government? Is he aware that the people are now completely disillusioned and know that there was nothing in those election promises?

I think that the vehemence of Scottish Members has perhaps led us to forget what the Ford Motor Company is contributing in another development district. On Merseyside it is creating 8,500 new jobs in 1965. If all goes well, that is expected to increase to over 20,000 jobs there in 10 to 15 years. That is a very large contribution in that area. As for the country thinking our policy of steering industry is eyewash, they prefer our policy to the policy of nationalisation of the party opposite.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recent redundancies that have taken place on the Aycliffe Trading Estate; and what are the prospects of these people finding employment.

Yes, Sir. Some redundancies at particular factories on an estate of this size are from time to time inevitable. The ones the hon. Member seems to have in mind were at the time partially offset by increased employment in other factories on the estate, and during April there was an improvement in the total numbers employed there. Further increases are expected.

Is not the Minister aware that I have endeavoured, by Questions and by a speech on the Local Employment Act. to make plain my concern regarding the new town of Newton Aycliffe? What is being done to offset the many forms of redundancies which are taking place? On 4th May the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend informed me that 170 redundancies had taken place at two factories. The greater part of the residents in the new town at Newton Aycliffe depend upon the trading estate for employment.

As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that there were about 170 redundancies on the Aycliffe Trading Estate this year and that at one of the two firms affected the reason was reorganisation and at the other firm it was a fall in demand for its products. The Ministry of Labour's figures on that occasion did not take into account the month of April, when there was an improvement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent consultations his Department has had with firms wishing to come to the Aycliffe Trading Estate; and what are the prospects in this respect.

The Board of Trade is prepared to see more industry at Aycliffe and industrial development certificates would be granted to firms wishing to develop there. There has been only one recent inquiry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend informed me on 3rd November that there are 150 acres of land within this area? As so much application has been made for the direction of such firms as the Ford Motor Company etc. to various parts of the country, why cannot consideration be given so that these firms and others can be directed to come up to the North-East?

I should make it quite clear that I think that both sides of the House—certainly this side—do not seek powers to direct industry. We try to steer industry. We do not direct it. In the past two years, Government-financed extensions at Aycliffe have been authorised for 14 firms estimated to provide about 550 new jobs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the collier fleet on the North-East Coast is seriously declining; and what action the Government will take to assist these displaced people to find other employment.

I am aware of the decline in coal shipments from the North-East. The Board of Trade will continue to encourage industrial development in those places where, for whatever the reason, the local unemployment problem justifies this.

This serious problem is a reflection of the general contraction in the coal-mining industry. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the collier fleet has declined by 75 vessels over recent years and that the members are seeking on-shore employments? This accumulated evidence should speed him to recognise the need for priority in the provision of industry on the North-East Coast.

I sympathise with some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that Seaham is included in one of the development districts.

Will the hon. Gentleman remember when considering this problem that Middlesbrough seamen as well as persons living further up the North-East Coast are involved? Will he look at that aspect?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has given further consideration to the applications for an increase in tariffs on imported tomatoes; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend announced certain increases in the import duty on fresh tomatoes in his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 5th May. The Import Duties (General) (No. 5) Order, 1960, giving effect to these increases is being laid today and will come into operation on 16th May.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by British industry on research and advertising, respectively, in recent years.

British industry is estimated to have spent around £300 million on scientific research and development in 1958. I know of no complete estimates of expenditure on market research. According to the Advertising Association, total expenditure in this country by all kinds of business in this country on advertising was £364 million in 1958 and £395 million in 1959.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is very creditable to British industry that more money is being spent on advertising than on research, according to his own figures? As he apparently accepts responsibility, since he has answered the Question, can he say whether the Government have any proposals for redressing this balance?

There is obviously no ideal ratio between expenditure on industrial research and on advertising. The ratio must vary between particular firms and particular industries. However, whereas nearly the whole of the £300 million spent on research and development is spent by the manufacturing industries, the Advertising Association in the latest year for which figures are available, which I think is 1956, estimates that only 60 per cent. of the advertising expenditure is by manufacturing industries.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that about two-thirds of the £300 million spent in private industry is found by the Government and is public money?

No, I do not agree. It is estimated by D.S.I.R. that less than one-half of expenditure on scientific research and development in 1958 was spent on Government contracts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increasing number of take-overs and amalgamations which have occurred since the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act; and if he will take steps to introduce legislation, similar to that which exists in the United States of America, in order to prevent these from taking place when the tendency of these mergers is to create a monopoly, or to substantially lessen competition.

My right hon. Friend is aware that there have been many takeovers and amalgamations. Some may be due to the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, but a number are not. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir!" but, if investigation of a monopoly appears necessary, we have the Monopolies Commission available to carry it out.

Will my hon. Friend agree with the statements made by the chairman of British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd. and the chairman of Associated Electrical Industries Ltd. that one of the reasons for the increasing number of take-overs is the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Is it not clear that one of the inevitable consequences of that Act was to lessen competition instead of to increase it?

I said in my original Answer that some amalgamations certainly were attributable to the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this was foreshadowed when the Measure was passing through the House? Will he consider introducing amending legislation to cover the loopholes in the light of experience since the Act was passed?

No. I think that it is too early yet to consider that. The Act was put on the Statute Book only in 1956, and I think that we need a little more time to see how it operates.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to sound too self-important—[Interruption.] —but in view of the importance of Question No. 48 on the Order Paper today, which asks whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to suspend patrol and other flights from British bases before the Summit talks, could not this House have an Answer?

No. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has been here a long time, and knows that that is not possible.

Is the Minister prepared to give an answer?

Yes, I am perfectly prepared to give an answer, if the rules permit it, but on this occasion I do not think that they do. I am sorry.