asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the continuing and increasing damage that is being done to Scottish knitwear factories by imports from Hong Kong; and what steps he has taken and plans to take to protect this Scottish industry.

My right hon. Friend is aware that imports from Hong Kong are increasing, but production of knitted goods in Scotland as a whole has been well maintained.

Has the Minister nothing practical to suggest to ameliorate this terrible position which is a very serious blow to an established industry in Aberdeen, and which, if combined with the lack of contracts in the shipbuilding yards, presents the people of Aberdeen with a very black Christmas? Have the Government nothing constructive to suggest having regard to the promises made by Ministers to the people of Aberdeen?

Seventy-four thousand pounds was offered to projects in Aberdeen under the Local Employment Act between April, 1960, and October, 1962. There are now nearly 300 jobs in prospect in new building and other developments in the area. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to know—and I sympathise with him about this—that imports from Hong Kong equalled 2 per cent. of the British production in 1961 and that during the first half of 1962 imports from Hong Kong were about 3 per cent. of British production. British production itself has increased by about 2½ per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received for Board of Trade direction certificates for sites for new industries in Dorset; how many have been granted; and how many refused.

Since the Local Employment Act came into operation on 1st April, 1960, 47 applications for certificates for industrial building in Dorset have been received. Forty were granted, two rejected and five withdrawn by the applicants before a decision was reached. Some of the applications granted and both those rejected were from firms not previously operating in the County of Dorset.

While I am glad to hear that the figures sound as well as that, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that there is a feeling in Dorset that we are being deprived of our fair share of new industries because we have very full employment there but that we do require new industries to provide better paid jobs?

I do not think that the figures which I have just quoted to my hon. Friend bear out the fears that people in Dorset have, but in any case it must be the purpose of my right hon. Friend to give first priority to the development districts when any new industries are available.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of these refusals were made to South Dorset?

The figures are not available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that fish and fish preparations for the first eight months of 1962 exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics amounted to £307,492, whereas the imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were £1,402,277, what action he is taking to increase the amount of fish exports to Russia and so help the United Kingdom fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Our bilateral trade arrangements with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are based on a comprehensive view of the advantages to be derived from the trade as a whole and there is no necessary quantitative link between the imports and exports of particular commodities. Quotas are negotiated with the Soviet authorities for the export of our fish and total sales in 1962 have so far been greater than in each of the two years ended on 30th June, 1960, and 1961.

While the Grimsby fishing industry is grateful for the slight improvement in exports to Russia for the last six months of this year, surely if the extra £1 million that we are spending in Russia were spent back in the Grimsby trade it would help the very hard-pressed industry? Will my hon. Friend have another look at the matter and see whether we cannot get a fairer return?

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that negotiations for the new Russian agreement are in progress, and it would be unwise for me to comment further.

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind?

I will always bear in mind anything which is put so per-suasively by my hon. Friend.

In view of the surplus shipbuilding capacity avail-able in Britain, might it not be a good idea to trade in some British ships for Russian ones?

That is a different question from that on the Order Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that for the first nine months of 1962 imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics amounted to £59,518,072, whereas exports from the United Kingdom to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were only £30,487,050, and re-exports £12,396,166; what action he is taking to ensure that United Kingdom exports to Russia more nearly approach imports; if he will include some consumer goods in United Kingdom export quotas; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the figure which my hon. Friend quotes. He would be glad to see an increase in the level of our exports to the U.S.S.R. and all the services of the Board of Trade are available to British exporters interested in selling to the Soviet Union. Quotas for British consumer goods have been in force since the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1959.

Is it not reasonable that both workers and industrialists should demand that the Government ensure that we export at least as much to the Soviet Union as it exports to us? In the last trade agreement, what proportion of consumer goods was decided upon? Since consumer goods provide more employment in this country than any other type of goods, will my hon. Friend see that more of them are included in the next trade agreement?

My hon. Friend must bear in mind that even if this country has an unfavourable trade balance with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is also a very substantial purchaser from the sterling area. Thus, the overall trade position may indeed be slightly in our favour. We are doing our best to increase the quotas, where suitable, for British consumer goods, but I must repeat that we are in process of negotiation at the moment.

The balance of trade which comes from the Commonwealth and may be in favour of the sterling area does not produce employment in this country. Those Commonwealth exports to the Soviet Union are in raw materials. I am asking that more exports of consumer goods from this country to the Soviet Union should be included in the new agreement to provide jobs for our people. Will my hon. Friend look at this again?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that trade is not conducted only between two parties. It may be multilateral in nature. In relation to this question, it is multilateral. The Commonwealth countries earn foreign exchange which they spend here.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation similar to that already applying in other Western European countries to provide for minimum conditions concerning contracts of service and compensation for manufacturers' agents

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in view of the fact that ten European countries, including France, Denmark and Sweden, all have legislation on this subject? Would he not agree that the problem relates to those agents who have, perhaps, worked up a very good business and then are summarily dismissed by rather unscrupulous employers?

My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that legislation in this matter is necessary. Manufacturers' agents are free to negotiate their own terms with manufacturers and their contracts are governed by the laws of contract. If, however, we join the European Economic Community and it emerges that the Community has a uniform law, we should, of course, be prepared to think again about legislation.

Why must we wait for that when already ten European nations have thought it necessary and desirable to have this legislation? Why is the Board of Trade so adamant and backward?

My right hon. Friend does not feel that in our circumstances legislation is necessary. The hon. Member will recall that there are many matters of this nature, particularly in the field of industrial relations and social benefits, which in continental countries are governed by law and which in this coun- try are covered by free negotiation. There is a different pattern between us and continental countries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the voluntary textile agreements with Asian members of the Commonwealth remain in force, in view of his unilateral imposition of a quota restriction on imports from Pakistan; and what margin of difference separated his requested limitation of exports from the voluntary offer of Pakistan.

Yes, Sir. Restrictions have not yet been imposed on imports from Pakistan but the situation is being carefully watched. The arrangements accepted by India and Hong Kong would remain in force. The answer to the second part of the Question is about 2 million lb. of cotton yarn.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Press release by the Board of Trade announcing our unilateral action in rejecting Pakistan's offer was made on the very day that Britain was asking for the co-operation of Pakistan in meeting the Chinese attack on India? Is he further aware that this is bound to be seen as discrimination against Pakistan which is hardly calculated to secure that country's good will? In view of the immense international implications, will the Parliamentary Secretary put before the Government the need to meet Pakistan on this point?

The hon. Member may recall that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated publicly as long ago as 18th October that, if the need should arise, the Government would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that the arrangements with the Commonwealth countries were maintained. Not only Pakistan is involved in this matter. It was with India and Hong Kong as well as Pakistan that levels were agreed in order to give help to the fairly hard-pressed Lancashire trade.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that even India regarded the arrangements that were made as discriminating against Pakistan, because the year chosen was 1960–61, in which exports from Pakistan were far below the peak year of exports from Hong Kong, India and Pakistan?

The figures are of some interest if one looks back upon them. At the time the request was made, Pakistan's exports of cotton yarn were nil. One needs, therefore, to bear in mind the background of the actual exports from Pakistan before being too rigid about the figure.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, however, that whilst there is considerable good will throughout this House, and particularly on this side, to the utmost efforts being made to liberalise Commonwealth trade, this House still has a duty to our own native textile industry? As a Lancashire Member, is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we had the biggest ever imports of textile goods from Pakistan? Whilst we quite understand the driving force behind those exports, at the same time the House of Commons has a primary duty to British citizens to give them reasonable protection for their livelihood.

I hoped I had indicated in my previous answer that in these matters we must keep as reasonable a balance as we can and that we are seeking to give the Lancashire industry a decent chance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the high rate of unemployment in the Milford Haven area; and what steps he is taking to deal with the problem.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the continuing high unemployment in the Milford Haven area, and is continuing to do all he can to encourage new industrial development there. The facilities of the Local Employment Act are available to firms prepared to provide employment in the district.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said some months ago in this House that the prospects in the area had improved so much that it was not necessary to build an advance factory, but that since then unemployment has gone up to 14 per cent. and is rising? Is there any reason whatever why the President of the Board of Trade should not join the dole queue for a bit of corrective training?

On our figures, 500 new jobs are accruing from new projects in the Pembroke Dock area. I quite recognise, however, that the unemployment figure there is extremely high.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of Government-financed factories now building in development districts; how this compares with a year ago; and what additional steps he proposes to take in Scotland and on the North-East Coast in particular, in view of rising unemployment in those regions.

The estimated total value of Government-financed factories under construction in development districts and associated travel-to-work areas in October, 1961, was £16·9 million. The corresponding figure for October, 1962, was £15·2 million. As my right hon. Friend announced on 8th November, the Government have decided to build a further nine advance factories in Scotland and north-east England.

In spite of that, do not the Minister's figures, showing a drop, represent a rather disappointing picture? Do not the large number of Questions on the Order Paper today show that there is widespread and deep anxiety about rising unemployment in all these areas and that in most people's opinion the Board of Trade has so far taken quite inadequate action?

The drop in the figures from 1961 to this year arises, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from the slowing down in the expansion of industry and investment. My right hon. Friend is just as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the increase in unemployment.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the job of the President of the Board of Trade not just to be concerned but to do something about it?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the introduction of legislation to ensure adequate safeguards fox investors in casino enterprises advertising for the public's savings.

No, Sir. If there is fraud the criminal law already provides some safeguards. This kind of investment is on the face of it in the nature of a gamble and my right hon. Friend has not thought it appropriate to the Protection of Depositors Bill which he introduced on 21st November.

Is not the Minister aware that in recent months, quite a number of these firms have been advertising for the public to save and offering interest as high as 250 per cent. a year and that when the depositors, or whatever they should be called, come back a few weeks later they discover that the firms have disappeared? Are we really to be told that, while unit trusts and building societies are meticulously regulated, firms of this kind can do anything they like by saying that it is gambling and not investment?

I recognise the difficulty posed by that supplementary question, but I repeat that on the face of it this appears to be a gamble and not an investment. It is not clear what the legislation would be expected to provide which would be of any use to people who were prepared to go in for this sort of scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the worst examples of flagrant fraud seen in this country for some time? Is he aware also that in the case of six of these firms the promoters, having collected what people considered to be genuine investments, have disappeared? Will he, therefore, consider introducing legislation to compel these people to state on their advertisements that this is a gamble and not an investment?

That might be a point worth considering; it might be a different point of view. I repeat, however, that the difficulty of framing legislation to cover people of this kind is formidable and one does not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily in that sort of way.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether South Africa still receives the same import preference as Commonwealth countries in respect of steel products imported into the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that a rather anomalous position exists when South Africa, which left the Commonwealth of her own free will, is allowed the same preference as Commonwealth countries to dump steel and other commodities in this country at cut prices? Will my hon. Friend review the position and see whether this is not unfair competition and whether the antidumping laws should be invoked against South Africa?

The fact that South Africa is within the Commonwealth preference area was fully debated in the House earlier this year. If there is evidence of dumping, then perhaps it can be produced, but I cannot answer a hypothetical question without evidence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many Industrial Development Certificates have been issued in the last ten years for industrial development in Batley and Morley.

In the 10 years ended October, 1962, 57 industrial development certificates have been issued for Batley and Morley.

Is it not preposterous that industrial development certificates should be refused and so few granted at a time when the heavy woollen textile industry is in decline and mills have been closing? Is it part of the disastrous policy of this shocking Government to try to strangle the West Riding?

In the 10 years covered by my reply, only one project was rejected.

asked the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last five years he has advised industrialists not to carry out developments at Barry Docks.

None, Sir.

Is it not the case that, during the last 18 months, without objection by the Board of Trade—indeed, with its blessing—several new firms have gone to the Barry Docks area with new industry while other firms have expanded existing industry there? Is it not, therefore, a matter of serious concern to the Board of Trade that these salutary developments are now threatened by the very unwise and wrong suggestions of the Rochdale Report that these docks should be closed down?

Questions about the future of Barry Docks should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to the placing of Government contracts where practicable in The Hartlepools in view of the worsening unemployment situation.

Firms in The Hartlepools can benefit from the contracts preference schemes operated by the Government Purchasing Departments. They should apply to be put on the trades lists of those Departments whose needs they think they are in a position to supply and they will then be invited to tender in appropriate cases.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, with 9·6 per cent. unemployed in my area, I am facing a very difficult situation and that there is urgent need to co-ordinate Government Departments in order to bring industry there? Time is running out and I cannot buy time.

Answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for Board of Trade Advisory Council assistance he has received from The Hartlepools for the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 to the latest convenient date and how many of these applications were approved.

Fourteen applications have been received, two in 1960, five in 1961 and seven in 1962. Five of these have been withdrawn, or are in abeyance at the applicant's request. Of the other nine, two have been recommended for assistance, four have been rejected—two of these being from the same firm—and three are under consideration.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that these numbers are not very large and that the time factor for a B.O.T.A.C. application seems to get longer and longer? Cannot the time be cut down in the interests of the public?

The time taken on these applications is not really very long. Under the Local Employment Act, B.O.T.A.C., before it recommends assistance, is required to be satisfied that, after the initial launching period, the prospects of the applicant firm conducting its affairs successfully without further assistance are reasonably good.

Is the Board of Trade, the Treasury or any other Department responsible for the co-ordination of Government policy in bringing work to areas of high unemployment?

If my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper, I will endeavour to give him a reply.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for, and countries of origin of, pit props imported into this country for the latest 12 month period for which figures are available, and for the preceding 12 months.

Statistics of imports of pit props, pit poles and pit bars by country of consignment are published in the Trade and Navigation Accounts. Trade in pit timbers has been declining but an increasing share of that trade has been going to home-grown timbers in recent years.

May I take it that it is not true, as I have heard it suggested, that the Board of Trade has advised the National Coal Board to buy some 90 per cent. of its pit props from abroad, including over 30 per cent. from the Soviet Union? Will my hon. Friend do everything to encourage still further the use of home-grown pit props in this country?

The sources from which the National Coal Board draws its supplies are entirely a matter for its commercial judgment. We have given no such ukase as has been suggested.

In his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that an increasing share was coming to the home industry. It may be an increasing share but it is a decreasing volume, and that is the point. Will he remind his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that this problem wants watching very carefully?

I believe I gave that information in my original Answer.

What proportion of pit props used in this country come from home-grown supplies? Forestry thinings produce many of the thicknesses necessary for pit props. Are these thinings up to date, or is there a lag resulting in our having to increase imports?

I should like notice of that supplementary question so that I may obtain accurate figures. But home production in 1962 is so far one-fifth higher than the level of 1961.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage industry to go to the Bideford and Torrington area.

My right hon. Friend is aware that unemployment in the Bideford and Torrington area is above the national average and he is keeping a careful watch on the position. He would be prepared to encourage suitable small developments there.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of unemployment in the area is already 4·1 per cent.? Is he further aware that shortly it is highly likely that our biggest employer will be closing down and that the level of unemployment may well reach over 6 per cent. by next February? Does not he think, therefore, that the area should be included as a development district under the Local Employment Act?

I repeat that my right hon. Friend is watching the situation very carefully.

Is it not a fact that under the Act the Government are empowered to put districts on the list if there is the likelihood of unemployment above a certain level.

Yes, Sir. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend did in the case of Darlington.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs are likely to accrue in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area between now and 30th June, 1963, and between 1st July and the end of 1963.

The estimated number of new jobs in prospect in any area is the aggregate of their labour requirements provided by firms who have been granted industrial development certificates or have been offered assistance under the Local Employment Act. On this basis the number of jobs likely to accrue in the Bishop Auckland group of development districts within the next two years from projects known to the Board of Trade is about 850, including 500 for males. The rate at which individual firms will build up their labour force depends on so many unknown factors that it is impossible to say how many of these jobs will accrue in a six months' period.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, even allowing for that optimistic figure, there will still be 2,300 people out of work in the area, which is approaching 5 per cent.? Is he further aware that unemployment has now crept into the rural areas of Barnard Castle and Middleton in Teesdale and has trebled in the last two months? Will he at least take some action with other Ministeries to see that an extra amount of public works—like schools and houses which are badly needed in the area—is started in the very near future?

It was with that sort of consideration in mind that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this autumn announced that £70 million more would be spent on capital works in Scotland and the North-East.

Is it not surprising, when the situation is as bad as this on the North-East Coast and elsewhere, that the Minister in the Department responsible should say that he does not know who is responsible?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the recent increases in prices from between 7 per cent. to 13 per cent. applied to the smaller consumers by the British Oxygen Company are reasonable, in view of the undertakings given to him by the company, following recommendations contained in the Monopolies Commission Report of 20th December, 1956.

There is nothing in the British Oxygen Company's undertakings which provides for the company's prices to be approved by the Board of Trade.

Is the Minister satisfied with giving a reply like that, in view of the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that he should take steps to prevent British Oxygen from charging prices higher than are reasonable and in view of the finding of the Commission that the profits of this company were unjustifiably high? Is he really telling us that he has done nothing to satisfy himself that the three-yearly review of price levels recommended by the Commission has been carried out? Is he sitting there doing nothing?

If the hon. Gentleman recalls the statement of 21st March, 1958, in response to the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission about British Oxygen, he will remember that it was not accepted by the then President of the Board of Trade that the Board of Trade should control the prices of British Oxygen, and that furthermore, it was doubtful whether the President of the Board of Trade had any powers to do so. The plain fact is that the company's last statement showed that its profit margins were lower than they had been for a long time. Furthermore, no complaint has been received by the Board of Trade from any individual consumer about the proposed price increase.

Does not the hon. Gentleman read the Press? Has he not seen complaints by smaller consumers of oxygen in South Wales and other areas about recent price increases? Why does he lie down in front of this company and invite himself to be trampled on in this way? Why does he not investigate the level of prices? Why set up the Monopolies Commission and get it to make recommendations and then ignore them? Why not get on and do something?

I repeat that my right hon. Friend has no power—

Why not take it?

—to control the prices of British Oxygen.

Mr. Dance.

Has he nothing more to tell us—

Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will be getting me into trouble with the House again.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions were held between his Department and representatives of the fishing tackle industry in this country prior to the negotiation of the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty.

Between September, 1961, and July, 1962, there were three meetings of officials of the Department with the Secretary of the trade association of the fishing tackle industry at which the progress of the negotiations for an AngloJapanese Commercial Treaty was discussed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is consternation among members of the Association of Fishing Tackle Makers about the signing of this Treaty? Would not this be the correct opportunity to see that fishing reels are brought into the general import allowance for fishing tackle? Can he give the Association some assurance that under the Treaty's safeguard clause fishing reels win be excluded?

The general safeguard included in the proposed Treaty will cover all imports from Japan and not just selected items, provided that disruption of trade is proved.

On point of order. In view of the complications of this matter, I give notice that I wish to raise it on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he received a letter from Kirkcaldy Town Council, expressing its concern about the rising level of unemployment especially among young people in Fife; and what was the nature of his reply.

My right hon. Friend received a letter on 16th November from the Kirkcaldy Town Council and a further letter on 20th November. He has replied reminding the council that the facilities of the Local Employment Act are available to those parts of Fife which are development districts and assuring it that he will continue his efforts to steer new industry into these areas.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the unemployment figures in the Kirkcaldy area are now almost double the Scottish figures, which are already shockingly high? Is he further aware that so far the Local Employment Act has not provided any jobs in the Kirkcaldy area and that none of the jobs in the famous pipeline has so far arrived? Does he not also recognise that after 11 years of Tory rule we now have the disgraceful position that school leavers can no longer find employment? What does his right hon. Friend intend to do to provide jobs in Kirkcaldy?

My right hon. Friend is aware of the worsening situation in Kirkcaldy and in Fife generally. There are 1,500 jobs in prospect in the Fife development districts arising from new building and industrial developments reported to the Board of Trade, including those still to arise from projects assisted under the Act.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be a complete lack of policy to safeguard those areas from which basic industries are moving? Does the Board of Trade have a blueprint and is it prepared to take action for areas where the older industries will inevitably decline, or will it wait until it happens before thinking about it?

The action we are empowered to take is under the Local Employment Act and in the granting of industrial development certificates. If no firms are willing to go to an area it is very much harder to provide employment in it. However, as the hon. Member knows, we have made a certain contribution through the advance factories of which two programmes have been announced this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of recent easements on the restriction of entry of British manufactured goods into Commonwealth countries; and to what future period these easements refer.

In October, Australia removed most of her remaining import licensing restrictions; and New Zealand announced new or increased quotas for certain goods for the year beginning 1st July, 1962. In November, Canada removed or reduced the temporary tariff surcharge from certain of the items on which it had been imposed in June. Details were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 26th October and 9th and 23rd November.

Will my hon. Friend seek assurances from Commonwealth countries that in future they will endeavour to refrain from putting total stops on the export of United Kingdom goods to those countries, because the resulting disruption of trade makes it extremely difficult for British manufacturers afterwards to pick up the old trade and go back in again?

I have no doubt that the expressions of regret by Commonwealth countries which have had to impose restrictions for balance of payment reasons are absolutely genuine and that they will not unnecessarily maintain restrictions against our exports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been issued for the provision of combat aircraft to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

It is not the practice to disclose details of export Licences for the supply of defence equipment to other Governments.

Why maintain this pretence? Has not the Press widely published the fact of the issue of licences running to millions of pounds for a large number of combat aircraft for the Republic of South Africa? Has not the United Kingdom representative in the United Nations admitted it? Why the secrecy in the House? Is it because the hon. Gentleman knows of the indignation which will be felt in the House if the Republican Government of South Africa is provided with aircraft which could be used against the African people?

A question of that sort, which would appear to involve matters of foreign policy, should be referred to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the recent amalgamation between Courtaulds Ltd. and Kirklees Ltd.; and how many manufacturers of viscose rayon yarns will remain in this country after the proposal to close the Kirklees mills has been put into effect.

Yes, Sir. Courtaulds will be the only British manufacturers of viscose rayon yarn after the Kirklees plant closes.

Is not my hon. Friend appalled at the situation whereby Courtaulds Ltd. can swallow up its only remaining competitor in the production of viscose rayon yarns, thereby putting 620 people out of work in my constituency by having said that it will close down the mill? Will my hon. Friend refer his right hon. Friend to the remarks that he made during the monopolies debate in this House last April when he said that a sensible judgment could not be reached in a particular case without a full examination of the surrounding circumstances? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to make a full examination of the surrounding circumstances and report the facts to this House and the Monoplies Commission?

I think that I can assist my hon. Friend. The amalgamation has not materially altered the competitive position in the industry. Kirklees produce only 6 per cent. of the total United Kingdom output of viscose rayon textile yarn and 1 per cent. of the viscose rayon yarn and staple fibre output. Although Courtaulds will be the only British manufacturer of viscose rayon yarn, other forms of man-made fibres are developing with which viscose rayon yarn has to compete. The demand for viscose rayon yarn has declined in recent years, production has fallen, and capacity has been under-employed, and Courtaulds itself has closed some of its plants.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why 10 acres of the Wrexham Industrial Estate are to be sold.

Because it is surplus to Board of Trade requirements.

Is it not a fact that this land was acquired in the first instance by agreement and at a price very advantageous to the vendor? Is it not also true that the original owners have not taken advantage of the first option being given to them, and does not that relieve the Minister of the necessity of selling this land? Finally, is it not true that there is a very high percentage of unemployment in the Wrexham district, and why does the Minister persist in splintering this industrial estate on which public money has already been spent?

The Board of Trade still owns over 200 acres of land at Wrexham, and plenty of this land is available for development. There is also a substantial amount of privately-owned industrial land not developed, and the sale of 10 acres would in no way jeopardise possible industrial development at Wrexham.

Is it the policy of the Minister to sell the estate outright? Is this just part of the general policy of the Minister to sell the estate?

It is the policy of the Board of Trade, where appropriate, to sell off land.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates were issued for developments in Scotland during the first nine months of 1962; and how much additional employment will be provided.

During the first nine months of 1962, 81 industrial development certificates were issued in Scotland, with an estimated employment of 7,087.

But is the Minister aware that Scotland requires 40,000 jobs a year, and is not this really a pitiful contribution to that need? When are the Government going to apply some new ideas to this problem with a greater urgency? If they cannot, will they get out and let in a Government who will?

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, whereas 8·6 per cent. of all the people employed in manufacturing industries in Great Britain are in Scotland, the additional jobs coming from these new I.D.C.s in Scotland represent 13·5 per cent. of the estimated additional employment, so, even though the hon. Gentleman may not like it, Scotland has done rather better than the remainder of the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the source from which he hopes to get all the increased jobs in the new industries in Scotland is gradually getting weaker? Is he aware that technological unemployment is now rising in the South-East and Midland areas throughout the whole field of the production of consumer durable goods? Unemployment is growing, and in fact there are 10,000 fewer people in those industries in the Midlands than there were two years ago. Therefore, is it not becoming increasingly difficult to direct these industries to Scotland, and will the hon. Gentleman really get down to the jab of creating new industries in Scotland if private enterprise cannot do it?

The hon. Gentleman has not got it quite right. We do not direct industry.

The Government should.

This is the big difference. We refuse firms permission to expand in congested areas, and then, with the encouragement of the Local Employment Act, we hope to persuade them to go to development districts, but this is still a free country.

Do I understand the Minister to say that Scotland has done very well? With 93,000 unemployed we have 7,000 jobs in this mythical pipeline when we need 40,000 every year.

The hon. Gentleman should listen a little more carefully to what I say. I was not saying that Scotland had done well. We were accused that Scotland was not getting its share. I painted out that on the figures Scotland had got more, in proportion to its working population, than the remainder of the country.

asked the Prime Minister what are the regulations governing the use by Ministers of Royal Air Force aircraft for the purposes of travelling to address political party meetings.

No specific regulations are necessary. It is of course well understood that Ministers do not use Royal Air Force aircraft for the purposes of travelling to address political party meetings.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Air is reported as having been specially flown in a Royal Air Force Devon aircraft on 26th October to address two Conservative Party meetings at Amersham and Chesham? May we know what other official business was included in this trip? What part of the cost has now been charged to the local Conservative Association, and would the Prime Minister agree that it would be an unfortunate Ministerial practice if Tory meetings were squeezed in at taxpayers' expense when Ministers were journeying on official business?

The facts are that on 26th October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air flew from Northolt in a Royal Air Force aircraft to make official visits to two Royal Air Force stations in Norfolk. On the return journey the aircraft landed at Bovingdon, and my right hon. Friend went from there by private car to meetings in Chesham and Aylesbury. I do not see that there was anything improper in that.

Will the Prime Minister say what is the use of sending Ministers to address political meetings? They do not seem to have met with any success.

The right hon. Gentleman has a varied experience of success and failure and a flamboyant way of expressing himself in both cases.

Will the Prime Minister answer the Question? Would he agree that it would be unfortunate if it became the practice for Ministerial journeys at the taxpayers' expense to be used for the purpose of Tory meetings?

It is a terribly long way round to Chesham and Aylesbury to go to Norfolk.

asked the Prime Minister to what extent it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to subscribe to a pact or declaration of nonaggression with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as stated by him on 5th March, 1959.

We are in favour of any measure which can genuinely help to reduce international tension. As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 15th November, we are in close touch with our allies about all suggestions for an international detente.

In view of the real improvement in the Cuban situation, is it not time that further steps were taken to secure a general lessening of East-West tension, and would not a nonaggression pact between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Powers make a valuable contribution to that end?

Of course, all these matters are for consideration. I think that what I have particularly in mind now is to try to solve some of the immediate problems such as the first stage in disarmament, the banning of tests, and perhaps measures against surprise attack. It is to consult over this very vital field, on which I know the right hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement, that I want to meet both President de Gaulle and the President of the United States of America.

Was it not during the Prime Minister's talks with Mr. Khrushchev that this idea of a nonaggression pact was mooted, and was it not also then that the idea of a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe was discussed and it was suggested by the Prime Minister that it should be further studied? Since this kind of proposal through the Rapacki Plan has now been proposed at Geneva, will the Prime Minister suggest to our Western allies that they should look more favourably on this project than they have done in the past?

I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and nobody is more interested to make progress than I am. On the other hand, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that before I undertake these talks it would be unwise to particularise.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether we may take it that this proposal will be considered in the talks that he is to have with President Kennedy?

Of course, it is possible far me to consider it, and I have it in mind, but I am very anxious to try to make progress with some more immediate and practical problems which might be possible of solution at the present time.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister responsible for development underneath the sea within British territorial waters.

No, Sir.

In the light of the remarkable breaks through in marine science, is not the Prime Minister prepared to look into the future and, so to speak, beyond his own nose, and recognise that here is a vast potential for British exploitation in a completely new sphere of industry? In particular, will not he consider the possible manufacture of marine equipment for the new sciences in areas such as the north-east of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland?

This is not a question of looking beyond one's own nose; it is a question of looking three miles under the sea. There is a variety of minerals, all of which are exploited by the proper authorities. For instance, coal is exploited by the Coal Board—which seems to be a sensible way of proceeding—oil and natural gas are administered through the Ministry of Power, and other products, like sand and gravel, are operated by the Crown Estate Commissioners. I do not think that it would really help to have a single Minister in charge of these very varied methods of exploiting mineral power.

Would it not be enough to put the Minister of Agriculture into a skin-diver's suit?

We must not impose undue strains upon Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister what further action is proposed in support of India's defence against China; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister what fresh consultations he proposes with Commonwealth Governments with a view to agreeing on additional help to the Indian Government in order to assist its resistance to the Chinese invasion.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent correspondence with the Prime Minister of India concerning help to India to meet Chinese aggression on the frontiers.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what further measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to send food and medical supplies to India;

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take the initiative in convening an urgent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to consider the implications of the Chinese invasion of India and the assistance which the British Commonwealth can give to India.

I have been in close and frequent consultation with Mr. Nehru and with President Ayub Khan. I have also been in consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers whose countries are offering or may be able to offer urgently needed help to India.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will welcome the arrangements so far made? Can he tell us anything about the suitability of properly trained Service men to deal with the equipment that we are now offering, and, secondly, whether there is any fresh appreciation upon the Indian continent of the importance of regional or collective security agreements at these times? Will he convey to the Governments on the Indian continent the fact that many of us here hope that one by-product of this unfortunate business will be a greater degree of mutual good will between the Governments of India and Pakistan?

On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I should prefer to wait until the Chief of Staff returns, and we can consider that part of the problem. We have met the immediate demands. As for the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, again I should like to await the return of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On his third point, he is voicing a sentiment which is universally felt. We all hope that some good may come out of this trouble.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the extent of the support given to India by the Commonwealth countries at present is in many ways a test case of Commonwealth unity? In seeking to achieve a Commonwealth view of India's misfortune, will he be prepared to pay particular attention to those Commonwealth countries whose attitude towards India has been ambivalent—and, in particular, countries other than Pakistan?

I think that we all share the broad sentiments expressed by the hon. Member, but the House will probably agree that these matters need a certain delicacy of handling if we are to get an actual improvement in the general situation.

Does the Prime Minister agree that this situation shows very clearly that British entry into the Common Market will not in the least weaken Commonwealth connections?

I should not have thought that that deduction could have been drawn from the recent events.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is perhaps an opportune time to consider the more general aspect of Commonwealth defence? In other words, might not it now be a good thing if he were to initiate discussions with Commonwealth countries about the possibility of coming to some sort of agreement under which the whole Commonwealth could resist any aggression by any foreign Power on any part of Commonwealth territory?

These are large questions. In view of the situation as it is and in view of the policies that have been followed by India herself, we must now try to take counsel together quietly and calmly, with the object of getting the best results, and not rush too rashly into conclusions which, if we tried to press them simply from our own point of view, might have a result the opposite of what we all hope for.

I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the contract or understanding signed in Delhi about the supply of arms. Can he give the House an assurance that the Indian requests have been met, so far as it is physically possible for us to meet them? Secondly, can he say anything about the actual fighting? Is any fighting taking place? Have the Chinese begun to withdraw?

I have said that the first requests that we could meet quickly we have met, and I think that the Government of India are very grateful for the help that they have had and the rapidity with which it has been delivered. As for the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the situation is very obscure. I understand that the Prime Minister of India has now officially received the Chinese proposals and has sought clarification from Peking on a number of points which appear rather obscure. As for the actual military situation, so far as I know no real fighting is going on, but there is a pause to see what the next stage will be.

My first point referred to the contract signed in Delhi. Presumably it is about the supply of arms and equipment in the future. Can he give the House an assurance that the Indian request was largely met, in respect of those items of equipment?

Yes, I think so. But the letters will be published today. They have been signed this morning and they will be published this afternoon. Perhaps I will be able to make a fuller statement when the Commonwealth Secretary returns.

Is not the supreme need a common defence strategy for the Indo-Pakistan sub-Continent? Did not Field-Marshal Ayub Khan propose this some time ago? Having regard to the very strong feelings which are now being expressed in Pakistan, will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations do their utmost towards achieving some new Commonwealth approach to the very difficult Kashmir question?

This question has been before us for a long time. It is not for want of effort on the part of successive British Ministers that we have not made more progress. We have great sympathy with both sides. What we have tried to do—and I hope that we may be able to do it—is to bring them nearer together.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some people have great misgivings about the policy of the Government in rushing arms to India when they did not know very much of what the quarrel was about?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is the right hon.

I recognise, of course, that there are a variety of views in the House, but I should have thought that the House as a whole was in general support of the policy which we have adopted.