asked the President of the Board of Trade what urgent measures he proposes to take to alleviate the continuing rise in unemployment in The Hartlepools, which is now 6·3 per cent.

My right hon. Friend will continue to use his powers under the Local Employment Act and the Town and Country Planning Act to encourage industrial development in the area. Several firms are known to be considering going to The Hartlepools or expanding there.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the figure of unemployment in The Hartlepools is now 6½ per cent. and has been rising in the last few months? Let us face the fact that very little appears to have been done. Is my hon. Friend further aware that the number of school leavers still increases, that we have a recession in the steel and shipping industries and that a still greater effort is needed by the Board of Trade to advertise and to do something to increase industrial activity in that area?

I am glad to be stimulated by my hon. Friend to con- tinuing well-doing. There are 950 jobs in prospect at present.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prevent the import from Japan of shotguns and air pistols.

Shotguns and air pistols may be imported without restriction from all sources outside the Eastern area and there are no grounds for preventing imports from Japan.

Do we really need to import weapons from Japan, bearing in mind the very high increase in juvenile delinquency in this country at the moment? Is it really necessary to import these weapons, especially when some of them are not up to the standard of those manufactured in this country at the moment?

I do not wish to quibble with my hon. and gallant Friend, but these are not weapons in the sense of needing a firearms certificate, and any question of safety would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Our mutual trade is benefiting from the progressive liberalisation of trade between Japan and this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what recent action has been taken to introduce more diversified industry in the greater North Staffordshire area; to what extent such plans include use of the former Royal Ordnance factory site at Swynnerton; and if he will make a statement;

No special action is needed to bring new industry to North Staffordshire, where unemployment is lower than in many other places.

May I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the two Questions contain different issues and ought to have been settled differently? However, we will not quibble about that. Is the Minister aware that the city council has for many years placed at the disposal of industry large industrial estates that should be used, and if there are any proposed extensions for any factories in the area, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that these industrial estates will be used?

Of course, Stoke-on-Trent is not by any means alone in setting aside an area for industrial development. We shall look at each application strictly on its merits.

What I am asking is whether, if there is a proposed extension to any industrial establishment in the city, the hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that that extension will take place within the city or on one of these industrial estates?

As far as extensions in the last year are concerned, the record is very considerable. Since 1st January, 1961, out of 24 applications for extensions 21 were approved. But I certainly could not give an undertaking that we would give approval in every case. That would be contrary to our responsibility under the Local Employment Act.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Imperial Chemical Industries is selling sulphate of ammonia to British compounders at £18 2s. 6d. per ton, and charging farmers £20 a ton, but selling it abroad in big quantities at £12 a ton, and, in view of the fact that it is offered from abroad at £12 per ton, if he will rescind the import tariff of £4 a ton which has existed for over twenty years and the anti-dumping duty of £3 a ton introduced on 3rd March, 1962; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is aware that producers of sulphate of ammonia in several countries make export sales below the price on their home markets. Such sales help to maintain production at an economically high level and make a contribution to overhead costs. It does not necessarily follow that producers could afford to make their domestic sales at the same price.

That Answer will not do. The farmers get a subsidy of £8¾ a ton on their fertilisers, but I.C.I. charges them £8 a ton more for what they buy, so that £8 of the £8¾ go to I.C.I. and not to the farmers. The farmers ask why they should be blamed for the subsidy when it is I.C.I. which is being feather-bedded. Why will not my hon. Friend take off these duties?

My hon. Friend must realise that the economic way to manufacture many materials is to run the plant at full capacity and, if home demand does not absorb the supply, to sell the surplus abroad. Cheaper sales abroad contribute to fixed costs and overheads and thus make a lower price possible at home. The price charged by I.C.I. at home is, according to the Report of the Monopolies Commission, not unduly high, and, since that Report, the price has been twice reduced. The farmer is, therefore, getting his supplies at only the economic price and is helped to buy them by the subsidy. I cannot agree to do what my hon. Friend asks.

If I.C.I. is efficient, why does it want this double protection of £4 a ton and £3 a ton to protect it from international competition? If we as a party believe in competition, why should not it apply to I.C.I.?

Most of our competitors also protect this supply. We have the evidence of the Monopolies Commission on the price charged by I.C.I., and, since its Report, the price has been twice reduced.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that the costs of production in I.C.I.'s figures bear some relation to the home price? Can he categorically state that LCI. is not exploiting the subsidy, as the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) suggested, in order to get money out of the Government?

It would normally be difficult to give such a categorical assurance, but, in this case, in view of what is said in the Monopolies Commission's Report published in 1960 and two price reductions since then, I can give that categorical assurance.

Since we rightly have anti-dumping legislation, is it not a matter for Government policy to ensure that we do the same thing ourselves and discourage dumping by our own firms?

My right hon. Friend surely is failing to take into account the fact that it is a benefit to consumers if goods are delivered cheaply to them if there are no home producers to defend. Many of the countries to which I.C.I. is exporting at a price below its home price do not have a sulphate of ammonia industry of their own.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything which LCI. could do of which the Government might disapprove?

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my hon. Friend's replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is Government policy to allow imports of cotton fabrics from abroad to supply 60 per cent. of home requirements.

About 35 per cent. of home consumption of cotton cloth is at present met by imports. It is not the Government's policy to prescribe what proportion of home requirements should be met from imports.

Can my hon. Friend say whether it is true that the United States percentage of foreign imports on sale there is, I understand, 5 or 6 per cent., as reported in the Press, and, in Europe, about 10 per cent.? Some reports even indicate that ours is about 60 per cent. as opposed to 35 per cent. If that is so, is such a wide discrepancy fair to the cotton industry in this country? If this trend continues, will there be a textile industry left in Britain in a few years' time?

First. I think that the higher assessment ignores the amount of Lancashire cloth exported and the amount of grey cloth imported for processing and re-exporting. Secondly, I cannot answer for the United States Government, but I would confirm that their level of imports is very much lower than ours. However, they have no Commonwealth responsibilities comparable with ours

Is not the hon. Gentleman's Question indicative of the oft-repeated fact that the industry is left in a state of complete uncertainty about Government policy? No one seems to be able to obtain any information about Government policy on cotton fabric importation. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter again and make a statement as soon as possible?

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave last week to a supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when I tried to make the present position as clear as I could.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Cotton Board's figures about the importation of cotton goods and their increase? Is he aware that in 1953 we imported 36 million sq. yds. for retention in the home market. that by 1959 this figure was 371 million sq. yds. and that in 1961 it was 524 million sq. yds.? When the Government consider their responsibilities to the Commonwealth, will they remember that Lancashire is also part of the Commonwealth?

We shall certainly remember that Lancashire is part of the Commonwealth, and that is why I gave the hon. Gentleman the assurance which I give him last week.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether cotton fabric made abroad can, under his Regulations, be legitimately described as "Made in England" in United Kingdom shops.

Imported cotton piece goods are subject to a Marking Order under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. The Order prescribes that such goods must be marked with an Indication of origin at the time of importation and sale. Marking Orders do not, however, extend to goods which have undergone in the United Kingdom any process resulting in a substantial change in the goods. It is for the courts to decide whether such a change has taken place.

I am only a layman in these matters, but surely these goods are made either in England or abroad. Why should processes such as printing and dyeing be the decisive factor? Why should a machine assembled here from parts made abroad be ineligible for a "Made in England" tag whereas fabrics sewn on that machine can be described as "Made in England" although produced in Japan?

These are questions of general definition. I have stated the position as laid down in the Merchandise Marks Act. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now give details of his plans for the erection of advance factories in, and in the vicinity of, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these areas have been shamefully neglected by the Government and that the history of his Department is littered with broken promises to look after them? In view of its failure to keep those promises, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the President of the Board of Trade should give way to a Scottish President of a purely Scottish Board of Trade, with a Scottish staff with knowlege of the needs and potentialities of these districts so that something may be done for them?

On the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, his constituency is fortunate in that its unemployment rate is not nearly as high as that of several other constituencies. When we consider further advance factories, I must tell the hon. and learned Member that I think it doubtful whether his constituency would be the first to qualify. I do not think that the second part of his supplementary question is a matter for me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the steel industry's desire to import United States coal, he will consider giving protection to the British coal industry, comparable to that given to the steel industry.

The coal industry is at present protected by restrictions on imports.

Does that mean that the steel industry will under no circumstances be allowed to bring American coal into this country even though it may produce a case, however shaky, that that coal would be cheaper? In years gone by, when the National Coal Board had to import American coal under its statutory obligations, it cost it about £70 million in losses, which were, in effect, a subsidy for the steel industry, among others, by the Board. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when any further application is made by the steel industry?

Those matters are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who has told the House that he is reviewing the whole position of the coal industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the imminent closure of the Rothes pit, he will now designate Glenrothes as a development district in accordance with the provisions of the Local Employment Act.

My right hon. Friend is now considering this.

How soon will the hon. Gentleman come to a decision? Is he aware that many miners in that part of the country are deeply anxious not only about the future prospects in their own industry, but also about getting alternative employment? Will he speed up a decision on this matter?

We shall certainly speed it up as much as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the major outstanding matters which are holding up the conclusion of the current negotiations for the United Kingdom and Japan trade treaty; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 27th March, he is not yet in a position to make a statement about these negotiations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint an economic survey to study the potential economic and industrial strength of the Northern Region, and to recommend the short-term and long-term measures, respectively, which are needed to reduce unemployment and ensure continuing industrial growth.

No, Sir.

Why not? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great concern is being expressed in the Northern Region about the long-standing high rate of unemployment, the lack of employment opportunities for juveniles and the lack of any realistic industrial plan for the future? Surely, the Government can find a more suitable answer than the hon. Gentleman has given. Will he look further at my Question and accept what I am recommending in order to help the Government to face their responsibilities to this neglected part of the country?

One reason is that in the past two years, two reports have been made by the North East Industrial and Development Association and I understand that another report is now to be launched by the North Eastern Development Council on roughly the same lines as the Toothill Report.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to renew the export licence system for scrap iron from the date of present expiry.

A new open general licence comes into operation on the 26th April which will permit the export, with certain exceptions, of iron and steel scrap between 26th April and 25th July, 1962.

Is it correct, as I am informed by my constituents, that since the licensing system came in, the price of this scrap has gone up by 20 per cent. to the grave detriment of local manufacturers, and that the increased exports have been offset completely by increased imports of manufactured products made from the iron? Is not this on the whole, therefore, a somewhat unfortunate procedure?

I cannot answer all the hon. Member's questions, which really cover another subject, but I hope that he is not confusing the price of cast iron scrap, which has risen, which is in short supply and which is excluded from this licence to export.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if this scrap is exported in the form of finished manufactured articles, it has a high convertibility ratio? Does he not consider it rather stupid to export this vital material very cheaply?

The fact is that ferrous scrap is in surplus and the best market for it at present is abroad. It is cast iron scrap that is in short supply and we are not allowing it to be exported.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we can distinguish between cast iron scrap and steel scrap? My information is that cast iron scrap is going out of the country and forcing up the price at home.

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is difficult to distinguish. That is why, after consultation with the trade, scrap that contains up to 15 per cent. of cast iron is being allowed to be exported, so that individual exporters will not suffer penalties if they cannot distinguish small amounts of cast iron in general iron and steel scrap.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of grants given to industrialists willing to provide jobs in Coatbridge and Airdrie up to the latest convenient date.

Up to the end of March, 1962, assistance amounting to £350,000 has been offered and accepted

Is the Minister aware that I have deliberately asked to what extent grants have been given, quite apart from loans? Does he not realise that in this part of Lanarkshire, the unemployment figures are rising considerably and that one of the most effective manners in which to tackle this problem is to give industrialists who are willing to develop employment prospects in the area better financial inducements? I believe that grants are a much more effective financial inducement than loans. Will the Minister have another look at the matter?

In the main, assistance is given by way of loan. It is only in special circumstances that grants are given.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the further support of the Crafts Centre, Hay Hill: and whether he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the future of the Crafts Centre.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will continue an annual grant to the Crafts Centre of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade his plans for improving the facilities offered by the Crafts Centre. Hay Hill.

The grant has been paid to the Crafts Centre since 1948 to encourage the contribution of individual craftsmanship to the improvement of industrial design. My right hon. Friend has decided that the time has come to discontinue it. Accordingly the grant of £5,000 to the Crafts Centre will come to an end when the present lease of its premises at Hay Hill runs out at the end of the year. The grant of £750 to the Scottish Crafts Centre will be discontinued at the same time.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary feel embarrassed at having to give an Answer of that type? Is it possible that the Board of Trade believes that £5,000 a year is such a large sum that we can sacrifice a shop window for the best craftsmen in the country who show the best textiles, the best jewellery, the best pottery and the best furniture? What on earth will happen to us if industry has nowhere to go to improve its own designs generally? This is shameful.

The Board of Trade has to consider the purpose for which we give the grant, which is to aid industrial design. We are certain that this is not the best way of giving the grant.

Does not my hon. Friend consider that the Crafts Centre should be linked with the Design Centre, having welcomed the fact that it has done good work in the past twelve years? What plans has he to bring about this marriage, which seems to me to be of the utmost importance?

This has been considered, but, unfortunately, there is a shortage of accommodation at the Design Centre and considerable capital expenditure would be required. We have reason to doubt that this would be the way in which the Design Centre would itself spend the money if it were made available.

Cannot my hon. Friend reconsider the matter inasmuch as he might decide to reduce the grant by stages and not all in one fell swoop, so that the Centre could have time to make other arrangements? It would be preferable, of course, if it could make private arrangements.

We have linked this matter with the ending of the present lease at Hay Hill. If, however, the Crafts Centre made such representations. we should consider them.

Does the Minister realise that his statement this afternoon will be regarded as one more evidence of the Philistine attitude of the Government in matters of this sort? Is he aware that, whatever he may have said, the fact is that many industries receive their inspiration from the individual effort of individual craftsmen and that this decision of his is thoroughly unsatisfactory and not in the best interests of the country's industry?

I am well aware that industries receive their inspiration from individual craftsmen. The situation has, however, changed entirely since we started to give this grant. Many more individual craftsmen are available to give instruction in the arts colleges, schools, and so on, and many more firms have their own individual craftsmen or designers with a craft background.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this is a decision of the Board of Trade or of the Treasury? As he says that he does not consider this the best way of achieving these objectives, can he tell us what he thinks is the best way?

This is a decision of the Board of Trade, and, of course, the Treasury has been consulted.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the second part of my supplementary question: as he has decided that this is not the best way of achieving this aim, will he tell us what he thinks is the best way?

The best way, as I have already indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), is the best use of craftsmen being made through instruction in arts colleges, and so on, and by individual designers with firms.

In view of that reply from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that for every 100 children leaving school there are now 571 jobs available in the London and South-East Region, and more than 1,000 jobs in the Midland region: whereas in the North-East region there are only 81 jobs available per 100 school leavers; and what steps are now being taken to provide more jobs in the North-East Region.

Without accepting the hon. Member's figures, my right hon. Friend certainly agrees that there is a need in the North-East for more jobs for school leavers, and he will continue to do all he can to encourage further industrial development in areas of high and persistent unemployment there.

That reply would sound all right if it meant anything, but I do not think that it does. Is the Minister aware of the disadvantage suffered by the North-East as compared with the Midlands and the Southern Regions concerning employment for youth? Does he not agree that it is a bit cock-eyed that regions like that can have a great advantage over other regions? Will he not do more about it?

I do not think that it would be possible ever to give equal advantages to all regions. We very much realise the disadvantage under which this and other areas of high unemployment are placed, and we do our best to operate the Local Employment Act to help them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a list of the applications for antidumping duties which have been dealt with during the past two years, indicating which have been approved and which have been rejected; and whether, in the case of rejected applications, he will summarise the reasons why they were so rejected.

Eighteen applications for anti-dumping duties have been dealt with since April, 1960. With permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT containing the information requested by the hon. Member.

Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with regard to the rejected applications? Will the reply that he gives indicate clearly the grounds on which they were rejected?

The grounds were announced at the time. Of the eighteen

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will facilitate the establishment of more industry in West Norfolk in view of the number of men likely to be seeking fresh employment as a result of the proposed partial closing down of the United States Air Force base at Sculthorpe.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to grant industrial development certificates for suitable projects in the area.

Will my hon. Friend please bear in mind that it may be more desirable to have developments in nearby towns than on the actual site of applications that have been made, eight have been rejected. That will put the matter in proportion.

Is the Minister aware that if he applied the antidumping duties sooner, particularly in the case of textiles, industry might be in better shape?

I cannot accept that. We act as quickly as we possibly can. It always helps an industry if it will give us, where possible, advance notice of its thought of applying for a duty.

It would be reasonable to consider the closeness of the work to the individuals who will be displaced. My information is that a large proportion of them come from places closer to Sculthorpe than King's Lynn.

I am pleased to hear that the Government are prepared to consider taking industry to that area, but will the hon. Gentleman realise that this is now a matter of some urgency? May I plead with him to take immediate action and not to wait until this large number of people become unemployed? The Government have recently become converted to the idea of planning and this is their opportunity to test it out. I hope that they will take immediate action.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why an industrial firm whose original intention was to promote development of its undertaking and employ several thousand men in the new town of Peterlee decided to switch to another part of County Durham; to what extent his Department was consulted; and what advice it gave to the firm;

The Board of Trade brings the facilities offered in all development districts in County Durham, including those in Peterlee, to the attention of firms which are considering settling in the County. I cannot say why a particular firm decides to go to one area rather than another.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of what has happened concerning this industry having switched over to another part of County Durham? While I have no desire to prevent industry from going to any other part of County Durham where there is excessive unemployment, may I ask whether there is any reason why the hopes of the citizens of Peterlee should have been frustrated by this switch? Does the Board of Trade know what has happened and has any advice been taken on the matter? Are we not to be considered at all?

The Board of Trade normally shows more than one site to a company or an applicant for a site, and it is up to the company itself to decide between them.

This area has been persistently neglected. Has the Board of Trade made up its mind that it will do nothing for the area? If so, why does not the hon. Gentleman tell us and not deceive us in this matter?

There is no question of deceiving the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The firm was taken to see the site in Peterlee and it was perfectly open to the firm to choose that site rather than the other.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the forthcoming complete closure of the North British Locomotive Company, Glasgow, and the consequent addition of 1,200 men to Scotland's existing unemployment; and what immediate steps he will take to provide employment in this area.

My right hon. Friend is aware that if the proposal to wind up the North British Locomotive Company is accepted by the shareholders it will result in the discharge of a large number of workers. He will continue to steer industry to Clydeside, as to other areas of high unemployment. Assistance under the Local Employment Act is available for new industries or expansions of existing industries which will give rise to extra employment for the inhabitants of Glasgow.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary never get bored with reading out these complacent Answers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is he not aware that this world-famous locomotive works has closed down and that 5,000 men are now unemployed? What exceptional steps will he take to try to provide employment in this heavily populated industrial area where several other works have closed down in recent times? Does it not call for exceptional action, and what is he prepared to do about it?

I do not accept that it calls for exceptional action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Local Employment Act was designed to meet the needs of changing circumstances. We shall continue to do our best, and if unemployment continues to increase in a place we shall do our best to steer more industry to that place. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, if hon. Members from different parts of the country ask the same type of Question, they are bound to get much the same Answer.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that much of the difficulty in this industry has been caused by the policy of the nationalised railways building their own stock, thereby denying the industry a basis for export? That is one of the major difficulties.

That would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary just contradict what his hon. Friend has said?

Order. If the question was directed to the wrong Minister, it is no good directing the contradiction to the wrong Minister.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the decision of Scottish Oils Limited to close the shale mines in the Lothians and the fact that the building of the new town at Livingston is intended to attract more overspill workers from Glasgow than the total manpower to be employed in the British Motor Corporation factory at Bathgate what steps he is taking to provide new industries as a source of alternative employment for those workers at present employed in the shale oil industry.

Having in mind the expected rate of recruitment for the 6,000 to 7,000 jobs now in prospect in the Bathgate area on the one hand and the expected rate of growth of Livingston on the other, there is good reason to hope that most of the men now working in the shale oil industry will succeed in finding employment with the firms developing in the area.

The Minister has been telling us over the last two years about industries going to the Lothians. So far we have not had any. Is the Minister aware that the adjacent colliery, employing 460 men, which is now being closed, supplied the shale oil industry with coal and that the 460 men displaced from this pit have been told that there will be no work unless they go to England? Surely it is time to get something done. In that area we get overspill from Glasgow. We are importing people from Glasgow and exporting people to England. Is it not time that something was done about it?

One has to consider the actual employment in Bathgate amounting to 1,100 plus the unemployment likely to arise from the closure of the shale oil industry side by side with the 6,000 or 7,000 other jobs likely to arise in this area

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that over 1,000 men—I repeat, men—are to become unemployed in the next few weeks in the shale oil industry, and that in consequence of this closure another 460 men will lose their jobs in mining in the same area, so that 1,500 men will lose their jobs in the next few weeks as a result of Government decisions? Can the Parliamentary Secretary still say that alternative employment will be available in this area? It is no good his saying that jobs are in prospect. When will they be available?

The purpose of the Local Employment Act is to envisage high and persistent unemployment. I cannot say that there will be persistent unemployment in this area in view of the prospects.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been established on the west side of Bishop Auckland and within ten miles of the Market Place since the passing of the Local Employment Act; and how many more jobs have thereby been created.

One, and one extension. Industrial development certificates have been issued for three other industrial buildings. The estimates by the firms concerned of the jobs to be created are confidential.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is quite shocking? Unemployment in this area is 2,300, more than when the Local Employment Act was passed. Is he aware that a number of industrialists who come to the area want a building to go into? Why does he not build them an advance factory in this western part of Durham?

If industrialists who go there want a building to go into, we shall provide it as quickly as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the number of new jobs that will need to be (provided in Scotland during the next five years in order to reduce the rate of unemployment in Scotland to United Kingdom levels and stem the flow of labour to other parts of the United Kingdom.

If everything else remained unaltered, the provision of sufficient jobs to take about 40,000 off the register of those now unemployed would bring the rate in Scotland down to the rate for Great Britain as a whole. It is not possible to forecast what changes will take place over the next five years.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time the Government really got down to the problem of trying to assess the needs of Scotland in order that they may be able to measure their achievements against that assessment? They would then realise how far short of the needs of Scotland the achievement of the present Government really is.

We are attempting to assess the needs all the time, from day to day. Against the 40,000 jobs which the hon. Gentleman asked about, there are 36,000 jobs in prospect, which is some way towards equalizing. if other things remain equal.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the public does not want to see everything remaining unaltered and that by his Answer to this Question and to that concerning North British Locomotives and others he shows an attitude which is hopelessly complacent and inadequate to meet the Scottish problem?

It is not a question of my wanting to see nothing unaltered. It is nothing of the kind. It is a question of the form of the Question I was asked and I have attempted to answer the Question as it was asked, saying that we cannot foresee the next five years in detail but we are adding very considerably to the jobs in prospect and moving in the direction that the bon. Gentleman wants.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he now has for bringing new industries to Scotland.

Since the Local Employment Act came into force in April, 1960, the Board of Trade has undertaken an expenditure of £43·9 million to provide over 30,000 jobs in Scotland. My right hon. Friend will continue to use these powers and has no further measures in view at present.

Yes, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unemployment is still double the United Kingdom rate, and that migration is continuing at the very high level of 30,000, about which he said nothing in answering the last Question? Does he not really think that Tory policies over the last eleven years have proved inadequate to meet the needs of Scotland? Is it not really time that the Government started to apply their mind to some new proposals?

No, I would not accept for a moment that our policies are not working, but we are considering the Toothill proposals.

Does not the Minister realise that the answer he has given in telling us about the jobs which have been created or are in the pipeline is quite insufficient? Is he not cognisant of the large number of jobs which are steadily fading out in Scotland? Will he not provide a booklet assessing what is coming about by the further colliery closures and the contraction of the railways in Scotland, in order to get enough evidence to see just what extra number of jobs will be needed before we go further with this great decline in employment prospects in Scotland?

Of course we consider colliery closures as we are made aware of them and take them into account in considering what shall be put in the development district list, but I cannot accept that the provision of 36,000 jobs in such a short period of time is in any way a failure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the powers under the Local Employment Act are being invoked to deal with the existing industrial unemployment in Scotland.

To the full extent that my night hon. Friend considers they can appropriately be invoked.

Is the hon. Gentleman really alive—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to the serious nature of the unemployment crisis in Scotland? Is he not aware that the machinery of D.A.T.A.C. is quite inappropriate for dealing with the present problem? Would he not consider taking political action now, for example do the case of the remaining part of the North British Locomotive Works at Queen's Park, employing 1,500 men who are at the moment faced with a complete stoppage of work? Would the hon. Gentleman not consider an emergency grant to enable this part of the industry to carry on?

This works has received very substantial assistance from D.A.T.A.C. in the past, and representatives of the City of Glasgow are coming to consult my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon on this business.

On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister to suggest that, however serious the circumstances may be, representatives of the City of Glasgow should displace the responsible Members of Parliament who are in constant touch with the Minister?

I had hoped that the House had understood the extreme undesirability of hon. Members rising to points of order which it is difficult to believe they themselves consider to be so.

Further to that point of order. Is it conceivable, Mr. Speaker, that you might protect the rights of Members of this House to seek an answer from Ministers? The Parliamentary Secretary replied to my hon. Friend saying that he would not answer his Question because a deputation from Glasgow City Corporation would be having discussions with two Ministers. Surely Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would assist me by recalling his own knowledge of the practice and powers of the Chair. The Chair has no power whatever to require a Minister to answer, or to answer in any form or in any circumstances. It is because of that fact that I could not detect any semblance of a point of order in what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer the animal feedingstuffs industry to the Monopolies Commission for examination.

My right hon. Friend will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind when he is considering new references to the Monopolies Commission.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has information about one of the firms in the industry which was thought to be independent and which has recently been revealed as a subsidiary of Unilever, could he find out from the Monopolies Commission whether Unilever has got any further holdings in firms which appear to be independent? If this were the case it would give Unilever a very large control of the whole industry.

The hon. Gentleman is in fact suggesting a reference—of a kind, at any rate—to the Monopolies Commission. All I can say at the moment is that this is kept under review and that the Commission has three matters to consider at the present time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation requiring limited companies to include in their balance sheets independent and up-to-date valuations of all their assets.

The Jenkins Company Law Committee has heard evidence on this subject and my right hon. Friend would prefer to await its report, which should be available shortly, before considering any question of legislation.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this undesirable practice of covering up assets deceives investors, freezes expansion, and provides rich pickings for take-over "spivs"? When is the Board of Trade going to adopt Lord Hailsham's principle of getting rid of the obsolete, the inefficient and fuddy-duddy in our economy?

The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware of the important requirement in Section 149 of the Act itself that balance sheets shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company, and that is what the accountant is there to certify.