asked the Minister of Education what consultations he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Income Tax difficulties which discourage married women qualified teachers from returning to teaching.

My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of this problem, but the position of women teachers cannot be dealt with separately in a matter of general taxation policy.

Has the Minister any idea of how many married women there are who would gladly turn to teaching but who find it financially not worth while because of tax aggregation and the lack of suitable tax allowances for the additional expenses in which they would be involved? Will he in the next Session consult his right hon. and learned Friend to see whether some means of meeting this difficulty can be found in the next Budget?

I cannot say how many married women there are in that situation. I do not have very many people complaining on this point, although, no doubt, there are a few.

I have more than 100 letters.

May I press this matter? Many of us who are in touch with organisations of professional women, university women, and so forth, are constantly told that this is a real problem. Does the Minister realise that it applies to teachers and to other persons working in education? Does he recall that I have on previous occasions suggested that something should be done, for instance, about the school dental service, which is, as he knows, so shockingly behindhand that, if there are any women dentists who could help, they ought not to be deterred, as they might well be, by the circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to make further inquiries into the matter?

Of course, we want to get them all back, but this is part of a very large problem. There are 4 million married women in gainful employment. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend has a very big problem.

asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made in the construction of a technical college at Bennetts Bank, Wellington: and when it will be opened.

The local education authority expects to have the building in use for the autumn term, 1961, as originally planned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is quite satisfactory, but will he also bear in mind the Oakengates Technical College founded by the Walker Trust? Will he do his best to see that the Shropshire County Council uses this building for the benefit of education in the area of Oakengates?

I will look into that and write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the majority Report of the Anderson Committee, he will now recommend the abolition of parental contributions for students receiving awards from public funds.

asked the Minister of Education what decision has been reached on the recommendations of the Anderson Committee concerning parental means tests for university students.

asked the Minister of Education if he is prepared to accept the majority Report of the Anderson Committee that the means test on university awards be abolished.

I shall very shortly announce a radical revision of the present means test, to be brought in by the autumn of 1961. This is without prejudice to the abolition of the means test if that, on full examination, should turn out to be required.

Does that Answer mean that it is possible that the means test may be abolished by the date given by my right hon. Friend if his inquiries lead him to think that that is desirable?

It is hard for me to say, because the inquiries will have to be very extensive in order to find out the probable full cost of abolition having regard to the expansion of full-time higher education.

Can the Minister give us some idea how he is to conduct these inquiries, because it surely must be rather difficult to know how many parents in future will be liable? Therefore, should not he decide this on the matter of principle rather than on a matter of statistical computation? It seems to me that this is a matter which should be decided on principle and does not merit further investigation than has already been carried out by the Committee under the very competent chairmanship of Sir Colin Anderson.

The Committee looked only at the university aspect of this problem. There are, as the hon. Lady knows, courses comparable with university courses. We have to consider what our expansion plans are.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the letter from the president-elect of the National Union of Students, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph, in which he pointed out that basically the present system amounts to a second system of taxation on the parents of those children selected for university? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when considering the total abolition of the means test?

I think that the revision will go a good way to help such students.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that one of the most important reasons is what I regard as a moral reason, namely, that young undergraduates who have won their way to college are earning their living as much as other young people and that they have a right to be considered as adults and resent being kept financially dependent on their parents when they reach young manhood and womanhood?

Yes; I have that consideration in mind.

asked the Minister of Education when he received the last request from the National Association of Schoolmasters for recognition on the Burnham Committee.

In January last, when I received a deputation from the Association.

Is not the size of this association a very significant factor? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to use his determined diplomacy to try to get agreement with all concerned in this matter?

It is not the size of the association which qualifies it for inclusion on the Committee. It is whether it represents a type of school which is not on the Committee. The reasons for thinking that all types of schools were already represented were given on 14th April last in an Adjournment debate, and those reasons appear to me to hold good today.

Is the Minister aware that the sole purpose of this organisation is to oppose the rate for the job? Will he continue to ensure that the Government do not give it representation on this Committee or any other one?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Lady is quite mistaken? She should look up the facts.

I know the facts.

The association has had that purpose in the past. It often gives advice on aspects of education other than simply pay.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am assured by representatives of the association that it no longer has that particular purpose in mind?

asked the Minister of Education from which organisations he has invited nominations for the National Council for the Supply of Teachers Overseas.

Nominations were invited from associations representing teachers and their employers in the United Kingdom and from a number of bodies, including the churches, which are concerned with oversea recruitment. The constitution of the Council is set out in my Department's Circular No. 10/60, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

In view of the fact that the National Association of Schoolmasters is the second biggest organising body of teachers in this country, should not it have been asked, too?

No, I do not think so, because the overseas demand is for teachers to teach in secondary schools and technical colleges, and so on. Demand is all for grammar school teachers and graduate teachers. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the composition of the Committee, he will see that the N.U.T., which has 180,000 members, is given only two places out of 12.

asked the Minister of Education if he will publish full details of the local authority school building programmes valued at £170 million which he has received for the year 1962–63; and if he will make a statement on the methods whereby he proposes to cut these programmes to a national total of £60 million.

No, Sir, my Department has already authorised the programme for 1962–63 after considering every individual project on its merits. The local education authorities review the priorities with my department and those projects which are most urgently needed are given a place in the programme.

Was it not a shameful thing for the Minister to suggest to Conservative councillors at Scarborough that they should trim their school building proposals just to suit his political convenience? Should not the people themselves be allowed to judge by the publication of the proposals of the local education authorities and publication of the system whereby the Minister disagrees with the proposals put forward by local education authorities and cuts them down?

I think that local education authorities do considerable harm when they put forward proposals which they themselves know very well are far beyond what they can hope to get and what they can carry out.

What is the evidence for that? Cannot the Minister allow the people to judge whether extravagant proposals are being put forward by local education authorities by publishing the proposals made? Cannot people judge whether they are urgent or necessary? Why not do that?

asked the Minister of Education the values of the school building programmes submitted to him by the Staffordshire authority for 1961–62 and 1962–63; and the values of the programmes he proposes to approve.

No separate proposals were made for 1961–62; proposals for 1962–63 amounted to about £5¼ million. In other words, Staffordshire, with a population of less than 1 million, applied for one-tenth of the total programme for England and Wales. I have approved programmes of about £1¾ million in each year.

Although the Minister may think that he is scoring a good point there, will he kindly take into account the terrible legacy of neglect of schools in Staffordshire in the last quarter of a century? Will he kindly come to Staffordshire and look at some of the schools and consult on the spot the local representatives on the education authorities about whether their proposals are necessary and desirable?

I know that there are urgent needs in Staffordshire. That is why the Staffordshire programme is more than its proportionate share of the England and Wales programme.

It is not enough.

Can my right hon. Friend state the average expenditure during the time that the party opposite formed the Government of the day?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the shortage of training facilities and trained personnel in the field of housekeeping posts and institutional managers; and what steps he is taking to overcome the present position.

Yes, Sir. I shall shortly be sending a memorandum to the local education authorities and colleges about revised arrangements proposed by the Institutional Management Association. I shall ask for co-operation in making the new facilities available to match the increased number of school leavers during the next few years. I will send a copy of the memorandum to my hon. Friend.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for being so co-operative and forthcoming in this important matter, may I ask whether he is quite satisfied that he can get all the money he wants from the Treasury, which does not seem to know very much about these household problems of the need of properly trained institutional managers, caterers, and so on?

Concerning courses which we are putting on in association with the technical colleges, I think it fair to say that I am being given the money I want.

asked the Minister of Education for what year he proposes to sanction the building of secondary schools cut out of the 1962–63 programme submitted by the Cornwall Education Committee.

Of the three proposals in question, I have promised one in 1963–64 and one in 1964–65. As I have not yet compiled the programme for these two years, I cannot say whether the third will be included or not.

Will the Minister take into account that he has cut out from the 1962–63 programme a mixed grammar school at Falmouth and that some parts of the accommodation in the Falmouth Grammar School for Girls are a disgrace to the nation? Will he try to see that a new grammar school for Falmouth is provided as quickly as possible?

I will do my best.

asked the Minister of Education why he reduced the school building programme proposed by the Cornwall Education Committee for 1962–63 from £840,000 to £130,000.

Although I appreciate the importance which the authority attaches to the projects not approved, they are in my view less urgent than the projects I approved in other areas.

May I remind the Minister that a few minutes ago he said that for Staffordshire, with a population of 1 million, he had sanctioned a £1¼ million building programme, whereas for Cornwall, which has a population of more than one-third of a million, he has sanctioned only £130,000, which is about half of the programme for 1961–62? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again to see whether something better cannot be done?

The reason is that Cornwall has got on so well in the past. Cornwall has done very well with reorganisation and there is a good deal more leeway to be made up in Staffordshire.

In view of the fact that the majority of the programmes of expenditure submitted to the Minister by local authorities are reduced by his Department, will he tell us whether it is his predetermined policy to reduce every estimate that is sent to him by local authorities?

As I think the hon. Member knows, we have a continuing building programme for schools, which is running now at about £60 million a year. Therefore, if local authorities submit proposals for three times that amount, I am bound to make some selection.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone who, as I have recently done, has seen the magnificent work which Cornwall is doing towards ending the backlog and, above all, abolishing the all-age school, would urge him to take note of the representations which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) is making on behalf of the need to step up the programme that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to give to Cornwall, which is eager to get on with the job?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Education what conclusion he has reached on the number of school leaving dates in secondary schools.

The consultations are nearly completed and I hope to make a statement before Christmas.

asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he has yet decided to publish the report by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on shipbuilding.

asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, when he proposes to publish the report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement.

The report, which was prepared by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, is the subject of confidential discussions between the Council and representatives of the Ministry of Transport, and the industry. The question of publication, which is one for the Council, will not arise so long as these discussions are in progress.

Does not the Minister think that it would be preferable to have this report published so that the criticisms could be answered point by point rather than have continued general criticisms of the industry and these rather vague and general replies?

The object of these reports is to produce action to make an industry more efficient. Therefore, the publication has to be considered in the light of the discussions with the industry on future action.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this report has been very liberally leaked? Many of us believe that if was deliberately leaked. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the attacks on the shipbuilding industry with regard to bad relationships, lack of standardisation and the quality of management, as reported in The Times, are not correct and not in keeping with the report?

The report in The Times that I saw purported to give the views of the D.S.I.R. about the shipping industry. Since those views are still under discussion now with the industry, it cannot be said to be correct in any way.

Is it not most unfair that a report of this kind, whether it leaked or not, should be allowed to be presented to the world, with all its repercussions throughout the world, when people who are really interested in this matter do not know what it is all about? This has caused the greatest consternation and anxiety, and I think that it is about time that the Government let us know what it is all about. I am not particularly concerned with the Director of Scientific and Industrial Research. For all I know, he may be worse than the report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, in addition to all these leaks which have caused very considerable disquiet, many people are asking questions about the wisdom of the Government in offering a very large subsidy to the Cunard Company at a time when there is so much public disquiet about the general state of the shipbuilding industry?

That is another question, but perhaps I could say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the Council intends to publish a statement as soon as these discussions with the industry have been brought to a conclusion, and I would ask the House to wait for that statement.

asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, what grant was made in the current year, and what grant it is proposed to make in the next financial year, to Parsons and Marine Engineering Turbine Research and Development Association.

The grant to the Association in the current financial year will amount to £70,000 in consideration of the fact that industry will have raised £210,000. The grant for next year will be on the same terms.

Is the Minister absolutely certain that the rules of this organisation allow the full play of technical and economic competition?

My noble Friend has this in mind and the D.S.I.R. is to review the terms of the grant as part of the investigation it is making into research and development work in the industry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons why, and the terms upon which, the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency have sold the Llanelly Steel Company (1907), Ltd., to Messrs. Duport, Ltd.

The Agency has a statutory obligation to dispose of its present holdings in return for adequate consideration. The price realised for the Llanelly Company was £1,750,000. In view of the company's revenue position in recent years I am satisfied that this price was adequate.

Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern—I hope, on all sides—that this means that £1½ million of public money has gone down the drain? If he recalls the row which his side of the House made about Gambia eggs, this loss is more than the loss on Gambia eggs. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that for a public investment of well over £3 million, the best offer he had was £1¾ million and that, therefore, because of the policy of the Government in proceeding with denationalisation, the public and the taxpayer have lost £1¼ million? Does the Minister propose to give us the full facts of all this, including all the offers that were made and the reason why the Agency has lost £1½ million of public money on this transaction?

The fact is that since the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, the offer by the purchasers, Messrs, Duport, Ltd., has been the only firm offer received by the Agency. I should have thought that it was generally agreed that what a company is worth, apart from its break-up value, is governed by what it can earn. The undoubted fact—the right hon. Gentleman will know the figures—is that over recent years the company's profit-earning capacity has been most unfortunate. Indeed, over the last seven years its average profit after depreciation but before interest and taxation was only just over £19,000 and in both 1958 and 1959 it made losses, in the first year of £176,000 and in the second year of £53,000.

I will not dispute that Duport's, a reputable firm, has paid what it thinks is a fair and full price for the purchase, but that does not absolve the Minister from being responsible for the fact that over £3 million of public money was put into this concern and that, therefore, we have lost £1½ million. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to give us a full report of how this money came to be lost?

Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman has any further specific questions to ask, I will do my best to answer them. The fact is that the purchase price was governed largely by the trading profits and losses in the last two years of the company. I should have thought that this was one of the main factors to be taken into consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave public anxiety about the adequacy of the consideration not only in this case but in other recent cases? Ought he not to publish the considerations and any advice which have led him to suppose that the price accepted was adequate? At present, there is a general opinion that public assets are being sold at a loss simply to get rid of them.

With due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that last statement is absolute nonsense. If the price which was agreed in respect of the sale had not been adequate, I should have thought that we would have had at least one firm offer in excess of it during the seven years since 1953.

Because of the public importance of this matter and the fact that the House is entitled to have a full account of how the public have come to lose £1½ million, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the gross national income was taken in taxation in each of the last three financial years; and how those figures compare with the United States of America, Western Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, and Italy.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether those figures, which I have not yet seen, do not indicate that the Government in this country are a good deal more rapacious in their demands on the taxpayer than are the Governments of any of the other countries mentioned in the Question? Will not my hon. Friend and his right hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to the question whether the penal rate of taxation is not mutilating the competitive power of the country and doing a good deal of damage to our export trade?

My right hon. and learned Friend has already said, a short time ago, that he takes the view that taxation in this country is too high. It is, however, fair to point out that if one looks at the percentage of gross national product at factor cost which is taken in taxation, the figure for 1959 was 29·5 per cent., and for 1951 it was 34·2 per cent. So at least we are making some progress.

Will the Minister also circulate the corresponding figures for Sweden, Norway and Denmark, which, for some reason, were omitted from the Question?

If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will do SO.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make sufficient provision in next year's Estimates to enable the keepers of the British Museum to exhibit on appropriate occasions valuable collections now locked up in the Print Room.

It is for the Trustees and not for my right hon. Friend to decide what exhibitions to mount within the funds available. Parts of the collection not on exhibition at any particular time are easily accessible to the public.

Is the hon. Member not aware that there are certain collections which, either because of the terms of a bequest or for some other reasons, are not able to be exhibited in Great Britain? Is he aware that we have held international exhibitions of great paintings and pictures from all over the world, yet we ourselves are unable to show certain masterpieces by great artists because of the fact that they are locked away in the Print Room? Cannot he do anything to remedy that situation? There is a cultural value in these exhibitions.

The Museum authorities have told me that they would welcome suggestions from the hon. Member about any special part of the collection which he would like to see on exhibition. I would think that this is not a matter that one can go into in detail by way of Question and Answer, and if the hon. Member would get in touch with the Keeper of the Museum I am sure that he will be glad to discuss it with him.

Do not pass the buck.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the order of priority to be adopted by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in disposing of its holdings in the iron and steel industry.

The Government have decided that in all the circumstances it is best at the present stage to give priority to the sale of the fixed interest securities which the Agency holds in companies already denationalised. The Agency is proceeding accordingly.

Why is Richard Thomas & Baldwins not being sold? Does my right hon. Friend's Answer mean that the Government do not propose to dispose of this company?

No, Sir. It is still—to use the wards of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in a debate in June—

"the firm intention and, indeed … the confident hope that the work of the Agency will be substantially complete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 992.]

As the Chancellor's Answer means that many firms now wholly owned by the Agency are to have a respite and will not be sold for same time to come, will he instruct the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency that it is the sole owner of these concerns and that it will not do for Ministers to say that they are selling them for a song because their profits have gone down? The Agency is the manager of these firms. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind it that it has a duty to look after them properly and to see that they are equipped with new capital to enable them to carry on?

I am certain that the Agency is aware of its duties in this matter. In the matter of sales one has to pay regard to the interests of the concerns themselves, and in this case I believe that it is to the interest of the concern that it should be sold. In this case I think the Agency acted correctly. The point is that when these firms are handed back to private enterprise the State still gets over half the profits they make.

Do I gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Richard Thomas & Baldwins, under public ownership, is doing so well, and is expanding in contrast to its competitors in private ownership, that he has come to the conclusion that no national purpose would be served by disposiing of it?

No, that is not at all the inference to be drawn. The fact is that the company would have to find substantial sums for its development in addition to the figure of £150 million already mentioned. There is to be a loan of about £70 million from the Ministry of Power, and the Agency has other funds, but not enough to enable this development to take place. We propose to sell its fixed interest securities so that the Agency should have the money to enable this development to take place.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that as soon as the Government have lent Richard Thomas & Baldwins another £70 million it will sell the company?

It is our intention to sell the company. [Laughter.] Certainly. We have never concealed the fact that we were intending to sell it. We have said so time and again. At election after election we have said that we intended to return this industry to private enterprise. The point is that when it goes back to private enterprise I as Chancellor of the Exchequer will still have an interest of over 50 per cent. in it.

Can we have an assurance that when Richard Thomas & Baldwins is sold to private enterprise—when it will have this £70 million of public money—we shall not suffer the proportionate loss which has been revealed by the Economic Secretary on the sale of the Llanelly Steel Company?

I very much doubt whether there will be any loss.

asked the Chancellor of the Exhecquer what recent additions he has made to the list of publications which are required to be read in the course of their duty by officers of his Department.

There is no such list.

Will my hon. Friend start a list with the book "The Law and the Profits" by Professor Parkinson? Does not he think that the reading of such a book would produce a refreshingly new view in the dusty labyrinths of the Treasury about the evils of high Government expenditure and the ways in which it can be effectively controlled, and cause the Treasury in general to view penal taxation with the same odium as does the taxpayer?

There is a copy of Professor Parkinson's book in the Treasury library, and when I inquired about it I was told that it was in great demand and that there is a waiting list. I gather that my hon. Friend is concerned about Government expenditure. In view of what he has said, however, I hope that he will not object if I consult my right hon. and learned Friend in order to obtain his authority for the necessary further Government expenditure required to purchase an additional copy of the book.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the effect of his expansion plans for the motor industry on employment in Coventry and the Midlands generally; and what modifications he will introduce into his plans, in view of the present threat of redundancy in the older established areas.

The projects concerned are part of the longer term expansion envisaged by the industry itself. It would be a shortsighted policy to allow present difficulties to frustrate the substantial contribution which the industry proposes to make to areas of relatively high and persistent unemployment. These proposals carry out the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Local Employment Act.

Is the Minister aware that the industry's plan to treble output by 1962 is encouraging false hopes of prosperity in depressed areas, while deepening the anxiety of the workers in the older established areas whose jobs are already threatened? Is he further aware that the motor manufacturers have had the cushion of very high profits in the last few years, but there is no such protection for redundant workers? In those circumstances, will he consult the trade unions again, as well as the manufacturers, in order to see whether the present project is an economic one?

I prefer to take the motor industry's own view of its future rather than the hon. Member's view. As for his second point, I would remind him that while it is true that there are at present about 18,000 workers on short-time in the Midlands, the unemployment figure for Coventry is only 1·1 per cent., which is much less that the national average, whereas the areas which will benefit from the expansion of the motor industry—Scotland, South Wales and Merseyside—have an unemployment rate many times greater than Coventry's.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the fact that he prefers to take the industry's forecast rather than mine, motor manufacturers in the past have consistently been proved wrong in their calculations? Is he further aware that the record of the industry is one of seasonal unemployment, which has been rectified only by the Labour Government policy in 1945? In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that even today one worker in seven is unemployed, on short-time or on strike against redundancy, is it not right that the motor manufacturers' miscalculations should be re-examined in the light of present conditions in order to see whether the plans which are being made are realistic?

No, Sir. I know that there have been seasonal ups and downs in this industry, but the general progress has been remarkable and I believe that the industry has a very fine future.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the measures adopted by the Government have resulted in any improvement in export trade; and what further measures are contemplated.

It is too soon for results to be reflected in the Trade Returns but there has been a substantial increase in the volume of inquiries at the Board of Trade from firms desirous of exporting. Measures announced in recent weeks are improvements in the facilities offered by E.C.G.D., and the formation of the Export Council for Europe.

Does the Minister's answer mean that the Government's efforts have so far failed? It is all very well to talk about inquiries and about the volume of inquiries increasing, but the volume of exports is not increasing. Is not that the vital consideration and would it not be desirable on the part of the Government, apart from exhortations, appeals and the like to exporters, to stimulate export trades as far as they can by removing some of the restrictions, such as the credit squeeze, which have an indirect bearing on the export trade?

Naturally we are all anxious to do what we can to boost our exports, which is vitally necessary, and we are taking such steps as we can to stimulate manufacturers to get on with this vital job of exporting.

Is not this stimulating having no effect, no tangible results? Is it not desirable now to make a new approach, perhaps with the removal of some of the restrictions which have an indirect effect on our exports? Surely, if one pushes up the internal trade of the country it has some effect on the export trade?

I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been some recovery in August and September on the March and April level, but it is much too early to say whether this represents the resumption of a rise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the cost of printing the forms which are to be used under his Department's Order under Section 10 of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, which is scheduled to become effective from January, 1961;

My right hon. Friend has not yet made the Order to which the hon. Member refers. He will not be responsible for its administration but he understands that the Departments concerned estimate that the cost of printing the cards will be about £500 a year and the cost of compiling and publishing the information obtained from them should not exceed £15,000. As the arrangements for distributing the cards to passengers have not yet been settled, no estimate of this handling cost is available.

Will the Minister consider, not on financial grounds but on the grounds of his own party's electoral policy, abolishing all these forms and stopping this nonsense straight away? What is the purpose of putting travellers through the misery of having to fill up these forms before they leave the country? If the forms are required for statistical purposes, why cannot the Minister get the information from the companies? Does not he appreciate that this is going to mean that people will have to get to the airports even earlier than now if they are to fill in these forms? What does he propose to say to the Airline Operators' Committee, representing twenty-six of the long-haulage airline operators who are now making it quite clear that they will not co-operate in the matter?

None of us likes extra forms to fill in. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. But the main purposes for which this information is required are to assist in our estimates of balance of payments credits and debits arising from the movement of tourists and migrants; to provide information about emigrants from this country, in particular about the loss to this country through the emigration of skilled people; and to provide information about the immigration into this country of people from other parts of the Commonwealth. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a very important object and that this is the best way of getting the information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what decision has now been made on the building of further advance factories; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend on 25th October to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke). In Scotland, we propose to take over seven of the fourteen buildings in the Admiralty depot at Carfin and to make two of the buildings, of about 26,500 sq. ft. each, ready for immediate industrial use; in addition, an advance factory of some 25,000 sq. ft. will be built elsewhere in Scotland, the exact location to be announced later.

Can the Minister tell us when the decision will be made as to where this factory will be located, and when this is being considered will he take into account the views of the Secre- tary of State for Scotland and his regional controller at the Board of Trade Office for Scotland and try to ensure that it comes to my area, whose case has been before him so very often?

The hon. Lady can rest assured that we will take into full consideration the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland and our controller for Scotland and that Shotts will not be overlooked. But it must be considered along with the claims of Greenock and Dumbarton, for example.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he proposes to take to bring new industry to the Shotts area, since its position has been seriously worsened by the proposed closure of its one remaining colliery.

My right hon. Friend hopes that the Shotts area will benefit considerably from the substantial developments taking place at Bathgate and Newhouse, but we shall continue to try to bring further industry to Shotts itself.

Is the Minister aware that, though he mentions two other areas in Scotland, there is not a single area in Scotland that has been as badly hit as this—Shotts, Newmains and Harthill—and that this last pit closure has brought great dismay to the area. Is he content to leave a once thriving area in this position in the future?

No. We are very well aware of the problems in Shotts, as I have discussed with the hon. Lady on many occasions, and we shall try to direct new industry to it. Bathgate is within travel-too work distance of Shorts. B.M.C. hope to employ there 5,600 when fully in production. Newhouse, where Honeywell Controls have, on 24th October, announced the establishment of a large new factory to employ 800–1,000 people, is also within daily travelling distance.

But surely the whole of that reply points to the fact that the Minister is quite content to leave this as a dormitory area if he wants to bring new industry. He and the President of the Board of Trade have already said that it is ideally situated for an ancillary industry and one way to ensure that is to have an advance factory in the area.

As the hon. Lady knows, under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received from industrialists contemplating the erection of factories or workshops on the Isle of Sheppey under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, and the Local Employment Act, 1960; how many of these were for loans; how many were for grants; how many were for both grants and loans; and with what result.

Twenty applications have been received for financial assistance in Sheppey under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, and Local Employment Act, 1960. Of these, ten have been for loans, one for a grant and nine for both grants and loans. Nine of these applications have been rejected, and the remaining eleven are under consideration.

Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the people of Sheppey the assistance given is not nearly adequate or anything like they have the right to expect? Is he also aware that unemployment there is running around 7 per cent. and is increasing while at the same time industrialists who want to bring employment to the Isle of Sheppey are being told that they can receive no assistance though assistance will be granted if they go to Scotland? Will the Minister try to reverse this policy which is having a very disastrous effect on the Isle of Sheppey and is quite opposed to the promises and undertakings given when the closure of Sheerness Dockyard was announced.

I admit that Sheppey has been unfortunate in the large number of applications which have been rejected, but there are projects coming along, such as Abbotts Laboratories and the Elmerd Manufacturing Company's factory, which should provide several hundred jobs. With regard to the second part of the question about not entertaining any further applications for assistance in the area, we have not actually removed Sheppey from the list and if our expectations are not fulfilled, then, of course, Sheppey will remain on the list and will receive further assistance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the attention of the Monopolies Commission the present situation in the newspaper industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the warning given by the Royal Commission on the Press, 1949, that a further concentration of newspaper ownership would be undesirable, he will consider asking the Monopolies Commission to investigate present trends towards Press monopoly, with particular reference to the closure of the News Chronicle, the Star, and the Empire News, and the links between certain newspaper groups and commercial television.

Whatever view may be taken of recent events, there is no situation existing in relation to the national daily newspapers which falls within the scope of the Monopolies Commission.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread public anxiety about the circumstances surrounding the closure of the News Chronicle, the Star and the Sunday Empire News and there is considerable hardship among workers in this industry? Is he also aware that there is a danger of further newspaper closures and that one of the specific recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Press was that if there were any further decrease in the number of national newspapers it ought to be a cause for anxiety on the part of the Government? If the Monopolies Commission is not a suitable body for dealing with this, will the Government consider setting up some other form of inquiry?

It is always sad when any of these newspapers, national or local, goes under, but it is not a subject for the Monopolies Commission at all. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's references to the Royal Commission on the Press and its Report, I think that is more in regard to the local than the national Press.

No.

I am sorry, the Minister is quite wrong; I hope he will study his brief properly and look at paragraph 313 of the Report of the Royal Commission which refers only to national morning newspapers and says that a reduction in their number would not be contemplated without anxiety. Is he aware that the Royal Commission had the job of inquiring into monopolistic tendencies of the Press, which is also the job of the Monopolies Commission, surely, or it ought to be? Can he look at this again?

I was not inadequately briefed and I actually had in front of me paragraph 313 Which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He might also have quoted paragraphs 606, 607 and 608, Which bear out what I said, that it is more concerned with the local than with the national Press.

In view of the Government's great passion for decentralisation and public accountability in other spheres, are they really happy about what is going on in the newspaper industry?

That is always of great public concern.

In view of the fact that eleven years have passed since the Royal Commission expressed alarm about the tendencies expressed or indicated in Question No. 38, does not the Minister think it is time something was done to stop this headlong careering towards totalitarianism? Is it not a public danger which should be dealt with immediately?

I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's description of what is happening as a headlong flight into totalitarianism.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter? Recognising that newspapers, directly or indirectly, affect the opinions of people in this country, is not it a dangerous trend that we should be going headlong towards what will be a Press dictatorship unless we are careful? Would not the hon. Gentleman think about this again and have an inquiry made into the circumstances of what has been taking place?

Would not the Minister consider whether there has not been a case within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, whereby two people have deliberately restricted the supply of newspapers in this country—one by a straightforward commercial enterprise and the other one I will not mention—whereby there are now only two evening newspapers left in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, in London."]—there are now only two national evening newspapers left in this country, or in the London area?

The point about possible reference of the situation in London is one which will be borne in mind when my right hon. Friend considers new references to the Monopolies Commission.

Where do we stand now? First, the Minister said that there was no possibility of raising this under the Monopolies Commission and now, apparently, he is saying that there is. Can he clear the position and say whether in fact it is the intention of the Board of Trade to refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission? If not, does he really say that the Government have no interest and no responsibility to take any action in this matter? If they accept responsibility, what are they going to do about it?

I certainly did not say that the whole subject was not one which could be referred to the Commission. I merely said that at least so far as the national dailies were concerned it did not meet the necessary condition about one-third of a particular description of goods being in the hands of one person or group. This may apply in the case of the London evening papers. That obviously is a point which would be considered by my right hon. Friend when he was considering further references to the Commission.

Would not the Minister agree that it is beyond dispute that more than one-third of the London evening newspaper circulation is under a single control?

I think that is not disputed. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must recognise that it is not for the Government to say whether people should be forced to start new papers or keep in existence papers which are already losing money.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage increase to date this year in manufactured imports, and other imports into the United Kingdom respectively.

In the first 9 months of 1960, the value of United Kingdom imports of manufactures including those destined for further processing, was 44 per cent. more than in the first 9 months of 1959. The increase in imports of other goods was nearly 7 per cent.

Do not these rather striking figures show that the present balance of payments trouble is not so much due to flagging exports as to premature decontrol by the Government of unnecessary imports?

The main factors leading to an increase in imports this year are, first, the increasing demand for consumer goods and capital goods and, secondly, a rapid rise in stocks. As to the general policy of liberalisation, we believe it is in the best interests of the country to maintain a policy of removing arbitrary barriers to trade.

How does the Minister explain the much greater rise in manufactured goods than either raw materials or food?

Many of the manufactured goods, more than half of them, were for further processing.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent talks he has had with the Pressed Steel Company about their proposal to establish a new factory in Jarrow.

The Department has discussed with the Company the situation arising from the breakdown of negotiations between them and the trade unions. There are no grounds on which my right hon. Friend could intervene, and the work which would have been done at Jarrow will now be carried out at the company's plant at Linwood in Scotland.

Does the Minister appreciate what a bitter disappointment this was to the people of Jarrow? Is he aware that many of us believe that this company never intended to come to Jarrow and that it seized upon a minor difference in order to make a major decision which might have very harmful consequences in Jarrow? Why was he so ready to grant an I.D.C. for the company to transfer to another area before he had satisfied himself that the difficulties which had arisen in Jarrow between the two sides could not be reconciled?

It is a great disappointment not only to the people of Jarrow, which I fully recognise, but also to the Board of Trade, that this development did not take place in Jarrow. It is not for me or my right hon. Friend to express an opinion on the breakdown of the negotiations between the Pressed Steel Company and the A.E.U., which is the real cause why the company decided to go ahead at Linwood. We could not refuse an I.D.C. for Linwood, which is also a development district.

Without in any way wishing to minimise the damage done to the prospects of employment on Tyneside by the intransigence of the A.E.U., whose local branch refused to accept methods of work study already accepted in Scotland and the South, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will agree that, by and large, over the past few years labour relations on Tyneside have been extremely good? Would he not also say that if new industries are to be brought to the Tyneside area the local people must be prepared to employ new methods?

I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. It should be put on record that the record of labour in north-east England is extremely good, as good as, if not better than, in other parts of the country. At the same time, it is equally important that the unions should recognise the necessity of adopting up-to-date methods.

Is not the Minister aware that this firm was wanting to introduce a practice in Jarrow which did not operate in its other factories—

Nonsense.

—and that the people of Tyneside were not prepared to be the guinea pigs without being given certain assurances? It is not for the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to denigrate the trade unions in the North-East. They can look after themselves, and he should try to help them.

I do not think it would be wise for me to go into the pros and cons of the dispute between the firm and the union, but the outcome is one greatly to be regretted.

In view of the very misleading statements made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), I shall take the first opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the high and persistent level of unemployment in Jarrow, he will state what new sources of employment are likely to be available in the locality in the near future.

Between 1,000 and 2,000 new jobs should accrue from new projects and extensions in the Tyne South-East Employment Exchange District, which includes Jarrow and Hebburn; the majority of these should mature within the next two years. We are continuing to do all we can to encourage new industry to go to the North-East, and, as the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday our intention of building an advance factory of about 40,000 square feet on the borders of Jarrow and South Shields.

Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming and tell us at what firms these new jobs will arise? Can he say whether he has any employer in sight for the advance factory which he proposes to build?

The 2,000 jobs in prospect include 950 for Vickers-Armstrong and Mercantile Dry Dock. These firms are going ahead with their extensions, but the exact time when they will come into fruition depends on the building programme and the future of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. The other 1,000 include a number for Paton and Baldwin, and will be mainly of female labour.