asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received to establish new industries in The Hartle-pools since 1st December, 1962; and how many of these have been granted Board of Trade assistance.

Since 1st December, 1962, one application for an industrial development certificate for a new industrial project in The Hartlepools has been received and the certificate issued. Consideration is now being given by the Board of Trade to four applications made during the same period for financial assistance.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his help in this direction, but may I ask him to do all he can to help Gray's, of Tees-side, in its recent application for the second dry dock? Will he also consider doing what he can to help Furness, of Haverton Hill—I know that this is not in my constituency, but my constituents work there—concerning the development of cranes and new tankers for the Admiralty?

I will certainly give the fullest consideration to the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Scottish Industrial Estates Ltd. disposed of the industrial site in Clydebank to Ingersoll-Rand Ltd.; and what steps he is taking to get this site developed.

This site was sold by the Board of Trade to Ingersoll-Rand Ltd. in February, 1961; the company has been repeatedly pressed to submit proposals for its early development.

This is a precious bit of Scotland. Will the President of the Board of Trade take steps immediately to get this land back from this American company, because it appears that it does not intend to use it and there are, I am sure, many industrialists who would be delighted to have this valuable site?

I entirely agree with the hon. Member. This is a precious bit of a very precious country. I have been in touch with the firm about its future developments and it fully appreciates the importance which we attach to the earliest possible development of the site. We would certainly consider re-acquiring it for any firm that was likely to provide employment commensurate with its size.

Is not the moral of this case that it is much better to keep these sites in public ownership?

That does not follow. Some firms would be deterred by being merely leaseholders. They prefer to be freeholders.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the United Kingdom has a deficit in trade with Russia; and what progress has been made in the negotiations with Russia for the increase of quotas.

Yes, Sir. The total value of quotas negotiated with Russia has increased by 23 per cent. since the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1959.

Has my right hon. Friend heard that the Russians are reputed to be short of oil? To correct the deficit, will he offer to sell them oil as well as ships from this country?

The Russians have made a number of statements regarding the oil situation and we are in touch with them concerning their real intentions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in regard to the Russian plan to buy British ships in return for part exchange of Russian oil fuel.

The Soviet authorities are negotiating with several British shipyards at present. One delegation is in Moscow this week. No action by Her Majesty's Government is called for at this stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to hear that some progress has been made since the last Questions were asked on this matter? Is he further aware that, before the war, 12 per cent. of our oil was Russian oil? Does not he agree that the present world system of oil prices is archaic—it goes back about 50 years when prices were based on Gulf prices—and that it would encourage a drop in world prices if some Russian oil were allowed into this country?

I do not think that the deductions the hon. Gentleman has drawn from his earlier premise necessarily follow. The world oil market is a very competitive one.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Russians sell oil to their satellites at greatly inflated prices?

So do the Americans.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a strong body of opinion which regards this as a very dangerous subject?

I am aware of the controversial nature of the issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing out this point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the need to attract new industry to areas of high unemployment, he will obtain powers to assist in the rehabilitation of derelict and unsightly land in areas not covered by the Local Employment Act.

I already have powers under the Local Employment Act to enable me to assist in the rehabilitation of land in areas which are deemed to form part of development districts by reason of the fact that they are within travel-to-work distance of, or constitute an overspill area for, a development district, where this will further the purposes of the Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my interest in the Question is now somewhat more remote owing to a recent decision of his in the case of Widnes, for which I am grateful? Is he aware, however, that the problem of rehabilitating derelict industrial land is not necessarily directly associated with the amount of unemployment in an area and its chance of being made a development district? Should not the right hon. Gentleman do more to help authorities who want to attract industry to make their towns more attractive?

I appreciate the need for such rehabilitation in areas outside those covered by the Local Employment Act. That, however, is a matter not for my Department, but for other Departments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a problem which affects a great many places where unemployment is both high and persistent, whether or not they have been scheduled under the Local Employment Act? Do his powers to deal with derelict and unsightly land apply also to derelict and unsightly factories or to unoccupied and unemployed mills, which constitute one of the most serious aspects in places that are extremely hard hit?

I appreciate that that is a matter of some importance, and I would prefer, therefore, to give a considered answer, but I think that the phrase "derelict land" does include unoccupied land or unsightly buildings if these can be acquired on reasonable terms. My powers extend only to those areas classed as development districts or which serve the employment needs of development districts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in areas scheduled there is room for flexibility in the administration of this Act? If he looks up the debates we had during the passing of the Act, he will see that some of us expressed doubts about this. Is he aware that more help was given under the old Act than under this one as at present administered?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I will look into that point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether be has proposals for the construction of advance factories in the new town of Peterlee in County Durham.

As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science announced last week, consideration is being given to the possibility of building more advance factories in North-East England. No decisions as to sites can be taken at this stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new town is very attractive and that there is an ample supply of labour available there? Can he account for the delay in constructing advance factories there? Is he aware that Peterlee is becoming almost a dormitory and that that is a serious situation for the whole area?

I must take into account the rate at which advance factories at present under construction are likely to be let.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to deal with the rising rate of unemployment in the area? If he is not prepared to do something about advance factories, what is he prepared to do in order to help?

I am prepared to use other facilities under the Act, such as building factories for the specific requirements of individual industrialists.

Is there any reason why the Board of Trade should not be more positive in selling advance factories to tenants and using the cash for further building?

We are always ready where appropriate to consider the sale of a factory to the existing tenant if he so desires, but the feed-back of such funds is not related to the amount of money the Government are prepared to spend on new factory development.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when contemplating the issue of industrial development certificates in areas of low employment, his Department apprises the Youth Employment Service of its intention; and how much information and warning is given.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as it takes roughly three years from the initial approach to the building of an advance factory, it would be of immense help to school leavers and other young people in such areas if his Department established liaison with the Youth Employment Service?

I should point out to my hon. Friend that the granting of an industrial development certificate does not always mean that a building will be erected. It merely states that a factory, if erected, would be in accordance with the proper distribution of industry. It provides a certificate to enable the would-be owner to approach the planning authority. I think, therefore, that it would be premature for the Youth Employment Service to base its estimates of likely industrial development on the issue of these certificates.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now introduce legislation to amend the Local Employment Act so as to enable more effective action to be taken to solve the unemployment problem.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the gap between the ratios of unemployment in the development districts and the rest of the country has actually widened since the introduction of this Act in April, 1960? Will he now frankly admit to the House and to the country that this Act was a mean, shabby and dishonest election "gimmick" in the 1959 election?

I would have to look into the figures closely before confirming or denying the hon. Gentleman's claim about the ratios. The Act has brought immense benefit to the development districts and particularly to Scotland. Having said that, however, I do admit that it has not solved the unemployment problem in Scotland. But we must remember that employment opportunities arise not only through new factory building but through a higher level of activity in existing factories.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the greater number of jobs provided in Scotland have been brought in by the motor car industry, which the Government were in any case intending to get to Scotland and which was going there before the introduction of the Act?

I should settle that one straight away. I am certain that my predecessor would never have succeeded in getting these two large motor firms to Scotland had it not been for the power granted by this House under the Local Employment Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his policy, or lack of policy, has not provided jobs for a vast number of unemployed in the north-east of Scotland? Will he look at the figures given yesterday by the Minister of Labour, which verify what I have just said? Will he put forward some positive, concrete policy to enable a greater number of unemployed in the north-east of Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, to be absorbed in productive industry?

It is my responsibility to try to steer expanding industries to development districts. I have been more successful, as was my predecessor, in some districts than in others. But we are conscious of our shortcomings in Aberdeen. We continue to bring Aberdeen to the attention of likely industrialists.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the reduction in the Estimate for promotion of local employment in the Vote on Account, 1963–64, reflects the Government's forecast of industrial activity during that year.

Expenditure under the Local Employment Act in any given financial year relates mainly to projects offered assistance or begun before the beginning of the year. The estimates for 1963–1964 do not, therefore, imply any forecast of industrial activity in that year.

Is it not making a mockery of the Government's protestations that they are doing their best with this problem if, with unemployment at over 900,000, the Board of Trade's expenditure on the promotion of local employment is to be cut this year by 40 per cent., from £40 million to £24 million? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain?

The cut is being made partly because the exceptional expenditure on the motor vehicle plants is approaching completion and also because we try to make our estimates realistic. This is not a case of a cut but of an estimate made on the best information we have at the moment of the expenditure likely to be incurred.

But is it not the case that even allowing for the expenditure on the motor vehicle plants, the right hon. Gentleman expects to spend much less this year under the Act than in the previous year?

The estimate is the best we can make at the moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the criteria of unemployment which are applied before an area is placed on the list to qualify for a grant under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

Under the Act I am empowered to list as a development district any locality in which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a high rate of unemployment exists or is threatened, and is likely to persist. There are no fixed criteria. I take account of the relative degree of unemployment in the area, compared with the rest of the country, and also of any likely developments in the future which might lead to further unemployment or, alternatively, create new jobs.

The House has been informed that there is no criterion, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the figure of 4·5 per cent. is used in the Second Annual Report on the working of the Act? May we be assured that a definite criterion will be used in future? Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain why on 19th February his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary denied that such a figure was ever used?

The first Annual Report indicated that the figure of 4·5 per cent. was used in the initial year, but it also pointed out that the rate was not fixed permanently and that changes in the national average might make it appropriate to modify it from time to time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to take the necessary action to prohibit the importation of foreign eggs.

I have no such proposal.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing reply for the British taxpayer, that the egg industry is capable of providing all the eggs we want, and that the importation of Polish and other eggs at certain times of the year causes a tremendous drain on the support prices which the British taxpayer has to pay? Will he look at this matter again?

I understand that the present price of eggs is somewhat above normal and I should not have thought that freedom to import eggs was a serious matter at present, although I appreciate that at certain times of the year imports may cause difficulties of the type mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. Any Question about the effect of imports on price support arrangements should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the personnel and terms of reference of the Consumer Council.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has so far been unable to appoint a chairman to the proposed Consumer Council.

This is an important appointment which requires an unusual combination of qualities. I have received a great deal of advice from many quarters and have thought it right to give this the most careful consideration. I hope, however, shortly to be in a position to announce the name of the chairman and the Council's terms of reference.

While I appreciate the importance of these appointments, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that he has now had some time to consider them? Will he assure the House that this is a matter upon which we shall be given firm information before the Easter Recess?

I would rather not give any undertaking of that sort.

May we take it that one of the reasons why no progress has been made is that the people whom the right hon. Gentleman has approached are not satisfied that this will be an effective Council? Will he bear in mind that if there is much further delay the valuable staff of the Consumer Advisory Council will be dispersed and the new Council will have no staff to work with?

I appreciate what the hon. Member has said about staff. The reply to his first question is that the difficulty is that the best and most suitable people are often already the most busy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether it is his intention that the Council should have members, staff and resources to enable it to watch over advertising on behalf of consumers?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the announcement of the Council's terms of reference.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the unemployment in the engineering industry, he is refusing import licences for £2 millions of Roumanian carcase beef which would provide sterling for the Roumanian trading organisations to purchase an equivalent value of engineering goods in this country.

I have to take into account not only the advantages which a quota for Roumanian beef might bring to our exporters but all other relevant considerations, including the situation on our own meat market.

Is not the sum of £2 million only 3 per cent. of our total beef imports, of which 73 per cent. come from the Argentine and other non-Commonwealth sources? Have not the Rumanians stated that they would apply this sum to buying British engineering and other products?

In an already oversupplied market, an increase of even 3 per cent, could have an important effect on the general price level.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his stand in this matter? Gould he not apply the same principle to Argentine beef and thereby save the British taxpayer millions of £s?

Fifty per cent. success is all I hope to achieve.

Does not our experience in the last 15 or 20 years show that the more we diversify our sources of supply of imported meat, the better? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that inability to sell our engineering goods to the eastern countries of Europe, compared with the permission which the German Government allows itself, is creating a great deal of discontent? Is he not aware that certain elements of the engineering industry should be receiving his urgent attention in this matter, for instance, the machine tool industry?

We must also remember that Argentina must not be denied the opportunity of earning the sterling to pay for the goods which she has already bought from us.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a firm, recently established in central West Fife under the terms of the Local Employment Act, was called on by his Department to pay legal fees in excess of the estimate given originally by the Department; and, in view of the need to attract more industry to Scotland, what steps he will take to prevent a recurrence of this.

The hon. Member is misinformed. The company in question was given an estimate of the Board of Trade's legal charges and was told that it would be liable, in addition, for the legal charges arising in Scotland. In the event it was charged in accordance with that statement. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the firm about this matter? Clearly, there must have been some misunderstanding. Is he aware that the firm is under the impression that the Board of Trade gave a firm estimate which, in the event, proved to be less than half of the total legal costs eventually incurred and that this is one of the minor irritations which make it all the more difficult for firms to consider moving into much distressed areas in present economic circumstances?

This is one of those hybrid cases where the Board of Trade solicitor does all the work involved in the B.O.T.A.C. agreement, save where there is a loan agreement governed by Scottish law, or where security is taken over heritable property in Scotland. I thought that we clearly explained the situation to the firm, but if, as a result of the hon. Member's Question, the firm would like to get in touch with me again, I should be glad to hear what it has to say.

x: Is it not misleading to give the impression that it is more expensive for the Board of Trade to employ solicitors in Scotland than in England? Is it not the fact that in English matters solicitors employed by the Board of Trade are paid out of the Vote of the Board of Trade and therefore out of taxation? Ought not my right hon. Friend to employ a Scottish solicitor on his staff?

I will certainly look at that. I assure my hon. Friend that we make a charge for the work and that in this case the total legal charges represent only a fractional part of 1 per cent. of the loan made to the company.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that East European Governments wish to increase their purchases of British machinery, particularly chemical plant, he will remove the handicap which his department's present import licensing regulations place on countries of the eastern area, so that they may have the same opportunities as other countries to earn additional sterling.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year West Germany did two and a half times more trade than we did in the eastern area, excluding East Germany, and four times more trade in East Germany? Is he aware that the West Germans are able to do this because they have eliminated the difficulties which exist in this country? Is it not time that our British manufacturers, who want to trade in all parts of the world, were able to do so on equal terms with West German manufacturers?

West Germany also buys a great deal more from Eastern Europe as part of a long tradition, just as we buy a good deal from other parts of the world where we have stronger and greater trading connections. Nevertheless, a large part of our import trade is done on open general licence with the bloc countries which are free to increase their sales of such products to us as much as they wish.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that unemployment in the Midlands hosiery and knitwear industry increased nearly two-and-a-half times between January, 1962, and January, 1963; and, as there is a prospect of further redundancy in this industry, if he will appoint an independent committee to inquire into the state of the hosiery and knitwear industry and to make recommendations.

I am aware that unemployment in January, 1963, was higher than in January, 1962. I believe that this very vigorous and healthy industry is more likely than any committee of investigation to deal successfully with its problems.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency alone unemployment in this industry has nearly quadrupled in the last 12 months and that in the whole of the Midlands area it has very seriously increased? Is he aware that some hosiery manufacturers, in the face of severely increased competition from Italy and Eire, are acting as agents for foreign manufacturers instead of modernising their own equipment and that they are sacking workers who have given the beet part of their lives to this industry and are deliberately cutting down their labour force? Will not the right hon. Gentleman offer a little more than that to this industry which is now in such a serious position?

It would not be doing any service to the industry to exaggerate the position, as the hon. Gentleman has just been doing. Imports are still no more than 10 per cent. of manufacturers' total sales. The part of the industry with which the hon. Member is concerned is largely in the prosperous areas of the Midlands where alternative employment is fairly readily available. The industry is vigorous and adaptable and I think that it will be able to solve its temporary difficulties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable amount of this industry is in Scotland, and that it is experiencing the same difficulties as those to which my hon. Friend has referred? Firms have closed, people have been stood off work, and the industry has been making representations to the Government concerning taxation. Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?

I was careful in my supplementary answer to refer to that part of the industry situated in England, because it was an English Member who tabled the original Question. I appreciate that the situation in Scotland is somewhat different.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opportunities for alternative employment in the East Midlands are practically non-existent at the present time, especially for men and women who have been trained in this trade? Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from this industry so that there could be a thorough investigation of its problems?

Questions of labour redundancy are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. If the industry expresses a wish to come to the Board of Trade, I, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or officials from my Department would be very glad to see it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the Government of the United States of America about their opposition to the purchase of the BAC 111 by United States airline operators.

No, Sir. The evidence I have seen suggests that the recent decisions of the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board were based on financial considerations and not on the nationality of the aircraft.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in a Press conference in New York, which was reported in The Times of 7th Match, that if the Civil Aeronautics Board took such an attitude it would be highly reprehensible, and are not we therefore to assume that there is at least a suspicion that the C.A.B. has based its decision on other than technical considerations?

No, I co not think so. I said that if it were to discriminate against British aircraft I would take up the matter vigorously, and we are continuing to sell aircraft in the United States. Since the Bonanza decision, Braniff Airways has placed a repeat order for six BAC 111s and there are other orders in prospect.

As the United States is always preaching free trade to the rest of the world, and as the right hon. Gentleman has visited Washington, did he make representations about some of the obstacles which were put in the way not only of aircraft, but of the wool industry, oil exports, and other things?

As my answer to a later Question will show, I covered the whole field of Anglo-United States trade relations.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by financial considerations? Have they proved an obstacle to the provision of these aircraft? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that there is no money in the United States to buy them, or that our price is too high? Is it not true that our prices are very competitive?

There is no question about the competitiveness or otherwise of our prices. It was a technical question which the C.A.B. had to decide, whether the finances of the airline were such as to enable it to operate successfully jet aircraft of this size.

Is it not the case that the United States Government have already resisted the sales of certain of our aircraft to other parts of the world? Is it not also true that, while the C.A.B. is a research organisation financed by the American Government, more and more that Government are tending to regard it as a sort of control agency with regard to the purchase of foreign-built aircraft?

I think that in this case had there been a comparable United States built jet aircraft the decision would still have been the same in the case of Bonanza.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in the value of British imports from China and exports to China, respectively, in each of the five years 1958 to 1962, compared with the preceding year.

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

If the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to give the figures to the House now, would not they have shown that there had been a very marked drop in British exports to China during the past three years? Has the right hon. Gentleman any policy at all for improving British trading opportunities where they really exist? Can we hope that during the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Trade to this country the right hon. Gentleman will do something effective to stimulate British exports to China?

As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, Chinese purchases from us have been adversely affected by their bad harvests and they have had to conserve foreign exchange for essential purchases of foodstuffs from other countries. However, it looks as though they have had a better harvest now and the corner has been turned, and in future we hope to profit from the good will visit of Mr. Lu to this country in 10 days' time and to see an upturn again in our exports to China.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is too much talk about the unavailability of materials which can be exported from China to this country which we want? Has his attention been directed to the exchange of economic missions between China and Japan which has resulted in considerable trade between the two countries of basic materials and services?

The geographical situation of Japan in relation to China and ourselves is very different. It is probably much easier to ship certain raw materials from China to Japan than from China to this country. A large number of products of Chinese origin are on open general licence and can be freely imported into this country if they are competitive as regards price and quality.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has granted an open import licence to International Computers and Tabulators to import the Remington Rand process data tabulator, Univac 1004, from the United States, thus worsening the balance of payments and increasing unemployment in this country.

In accordance with general policy applying virtually to all goods, imports of data processing equipment from the United States are on Open General Licence. No specific approval from the Board of Trade was therefore required for the import to which the hon. Member refers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision of I.C.T. to import these computers from America means the closing of a number of its factories in this country, including one in Southport employing 800 men and another in Northern Ireland, in both of which areas unemployment is exceedingly high? Is he not also aware that the Trades Council of Southport has appealed to him that, instead of granting this open general import licence, he should grant a limited licence for the import of a number of prototypes, so that production can take place under licence in this country and thus give employment not only in Southport but in the radio and electronics industry for making the components and transistors to go into these machines? Could not he amend the open general import licence along those lines?

I think that this is a case in which long-term policy produces an unfortunate short-term effect. Were the import of these machines to be banned, I do not think that it would be for the future health of this company in this country. The real problem is that the demand for punch card equipment has been affected by the rapid extension of the use of computers. The company considers that until it has devised electronic machines of its own to cover the whole field, the only practical way of increasing its share of a changing and expanding market is to supply machines which other firms have developed and thus hold its own.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Ampex Corporation in Reading, which produces nearly all the brain or memory units for every computer made in the country, is trying to do everything in its power to increase its output to meet the large British and world demand? Does he realise that it is doing a vast export business and that it is trying to get his co-operation for expansion both in Reading and elsewhere? Will he assure me that he will give this co-operation?

I am glad to give the assurance that I will provide this cooperation. The firm has been most cooperative in understanding our approach to expansion in development districts, and I hope that this co-operation between the firm and my Department will continue.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is just another example of a firm in this country pretending to start production, and then, because it totally fails to keep pace with chandising products from America? Why cannot we develop this kind of advanced computer in this country? Why should this firm be encouraged in its slothfulness by being allowed an open general licence which will amount to a huge dollar bill of probably £3 million a year, which will adversely affect our balance of payments position? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again?

I certainly will not, because I think that it is in the best interests of this country that we should encourage American investment here, because overseas investment in Britain has made a tremendous contribution in our leading growth industries. It a particular firm has an occasional setback, such as this firm is experiencing, we should give it an opportunity of re-establishing itself in accordance with its own best commercial judgment.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total value of export contracts which have been covered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department financial guarantees extending over a longer period than five years; and what is the value of such contracts with Communist countries.

So far, financial guarantees have been issued in connection with five contracts with a total value of just over £51 million. Only one of these has concerned a Communist country, and this involved a contract for £28 million for Yugoslavia.

The right hon. Gentleman may recall that in answering a Question of mine some time ago he indicated that E.C.G.D. guarantees were equally applicable both east and west of the Iron Curtain. Since Yugoslavia is not exactly on the other side of the Iron Curtain, does not his Answer indicate that there have been no E.C.G.D. guarantees for long-term contracts east of the Iron Curtain, and does not this also indicate that this arrangement is not working out in practice as he said it would in principle? Will he make quite sure that everything is being done to see that our facilities for East-West trade are equal to those of our competitors?

If the hon. Member will look back to the announcement referring to financial guarantees he will see that the system is highly selective. They have to be specific types of project, and above a certain size. That is why relatively few have been successfully negotiated so far. The hon. Member's terminology in talking about "Communist countries" made it a little difficult for me to answer adequately. I did my best in the circumstances. He is mistaken in drawing the deduction that he has in his supplementary question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take measures to prevent sudden and excessive increases in the shipments of beef from the Argentine such as occurred in January this year, in view of their unsteadying effect on the market for home-produced beef and the consequent increase in the cost of the farm price guarantees to the Exchequer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent imports of chilled beef from Argentina and beef from other sources have increased in recent weeks, in competition with home-produced beef; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are now taking to contain beef imports.

The latest statistics available are for January, and show an increase in imports. As regards our future policy towards such imports, I would refer to the statement by the Prime Minister on 11th February on the review of agricultural policy and to the Annual Review White Paper published yesterday.

Is it not extraordinary that there is not some machinery for co-ordination between the exporting countries and ourselves, in order to see that these sudden increases, which are not really in the interests of anybody, do not occur? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there was ample notice of the fact that these increases were likely to take place, and as the cost at which this beef has been sold in this country was almost certainly below its cost of production in the country of origin, does not this amount to dumping? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the present procedure is anything like adequate to deal with occurrences of this sort?

I think that the present arrangements are adequate. During last year approaches were made to the Argentine and the other main meat supplying countries, requesting them to exercise restraint in the level of exports of beef. We do not want to turn away supplies too readily in times of abundant supply, in case these countries cease to send them to us in times of shortage.

I quite understand what my right hon. Friend has just said, but does not he agree that there is a case, in order to improve the situation, for seeing whether O.E.C.D. might not be enlarged to include the Argentine, thus ensuring that Europe, America and Britain are all brought into the same organisation, with a consequent steady flow of exports and imports?

My hon. Friend's interesting suggestion goes much wider than the original Question. I would rather not try to answer it by way of a supplementary answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent ancillary industries have been attracted to Scotland following the establishment of the motor car industry there.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in getting local firms to produce in the Scottish industrial belt components for the two motor vehicle assembly plants, or in influencing the existing firms to move to that area; and whether he will appoint an official with full-time specific responsibility for this task.

There are now 10 companies known to the Board of Trade which have established or hope to establish factories in Scotland from which they will supply products for the motor industry. It will inevitably take time for Scotland to build up industry ancillary to the motor industry in competition with the established suppliers. I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by appointing an official with specific responsibility for this question.

Is it not known to the President of the Board of Trade that there are constant complaints, coming even from the motor car industry in Scotland itself, that it cannot find suppliers to meet its ancillary needs? Does not this rather suggest that if Scotland is to rely on private enterprise it will continue to have a very raw deal? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what can be done through the agency of the National Research Development Association to see that this development is set properly on foot?

Things are going better. Of the 10 firms concerned, 8 are already in production or have factories under construction to provide work for over 2,000 workers in due course. We have always said that development of ancillary industry would take time, but I think it is going reasonably well.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that towards the end of the war an aluminium plate firm was established in Falkirk which produced the raw material necessary for aluminium? There are a number of basic firms established by Government action at various times, Would it not be advisable to have some body whose definite job it was either to invite firms or to see that they set up there to produce these commodities?

There are two ways of going about this. One is the very tough policy which I pursue in the Midlands in regard to the expansion of Midland components manufacturers. The other is that I hope that firms already established in Scotland will get together with the motor vehicle makers in Scotland who are very anxious to trade with Scottish firms if they offer competitive price and quality.

Is it not true that already one very large pressed steel works near Paisley is to turn out—if it has not yet already started—thousands of tons of steel panels for the motor industry of Scotland?

That is a very valuable addition to the Scottish economy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much the actual expenditure incurred under the Local Employment Act in 1962–63 will be less than the estimate of £41 millions; and what are the comparable figures for Scotland.

Expenditure under the Local Employment Act for the 11 months ended 28th February, 1963, amounted to £18·4 million, of which £11·1 million was in respect of Scotland. No separate estimate of expenditure by country was made.

Is it not rather startling that we expected to spend £41 million and we spent £18 million? If we take the figures in respect of Scotland proportionately, there is just as startling and disastrous a drop. Does not this show how ineffective the Government's policy is in relying on the Local Employment Act? When the need is greatest we spend less and less. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much was loaned and how much was granted in respect of the £18 million and the £11·1 million in respect of Scotland?

If the hon. Member puts down a Question on those lines I will do my best to provide the information which he wants. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, what this shows is how carefully and scrupulously we try to produce estimates for the House. We put down our estimates on the basis of what we knew at the time. At the time that the estimate was prepared we did not know that a number of the applications would not be proceeded with, nor did we then know that some projects would go ahead more slowly, partly because of bad weather and partly for other reasons.

Questions to the Prime Minister.

On a point of order. Before the Prime Minister answers the first Question addressed to him may I respectfully raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, arising out of Question No. 100, which appears immediately above the Prime Minister's Questions? I would not trouble you if that were the only matter of concern, knowing that you have always disclaimed any responsibility for the transferring of Questions, but the circumstances in this case are a little different.

In the interests of other hon. Members, I think that it would be better if the hon. Member's point of order were dealt with after Questions.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that, on the basis of data contained in the 1962 Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, one result of nuclear tests conducted up to the end of 1961 will be that, of the babies born alive each year, at least 3,000 who would have been healthy will be born suffering from genetic defects; if he has studied the evidence sent to him in support of this estimate; and if he will give an assurance that no more tests will be underaken by Her Majesty's Government;

I have had the article which the hon. Member sent to me studied. Both the Medical Research Council and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation in their second report, have taken the view that there is at present insufficient knowledge to justify attempting to make numerical estimates of genetic defects due to small doses of radiation received as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons. The total additional radiation from testing is small compared with the background radiation to which we are all subject.

The Prime Minister says that he has had this article studied. I admit that most of it is highly technical—much too technical for me—but can he say whether he has read the last part of it, which is quite comprehensible to a layman? Bearing in mind that the author of the article, Dr. Anne McLaren, is a distinguished geneticist at Edinburgh University, who did not make this estimate lightly or carelessly, will the Prime Minister look again at this aspect of the matter?

I agree that this article, written by a very distinguished man, should be taken very seriously.

It was written by a woman.

In view of the fact that there is no longer any differ- ence of principle between the Soviet Union and the Western Governments in the matter of on-site inspections, and that the difference is only on the question of numbers, will the Prime Minister consider communicating with Mr. Khrushchev, as he undertook to do in his letter of 10th April last year, suggesting that this problem should be submitted to the scientists of the three countries, to be decided on the basis of the absolute minimum number of on-site inspections that are necessary, and not on a political basis?

I will take note of that suggestion. There are some other questions, relating to the character of the arrangements to be made for tests, but I quite agree that the reversion of the Russians to their position of 1960, when they accepted the principle of on-site tests—which they subsequently abandoned—is an important step forward. I am very hopeful that it may ultimately lead to a solution.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one small underground test will give very little military advantage to those who carry it out, and that a series of tests is almost certain to be detected? Does not that show the advantage of trying to reach agreement, even on the basis of three on-site inspections?

The important thing is that the principle of on-site inspection has been accepted. The number still has to be negotiated. There also remains to be negotiated the question of the conditions of inspection, which involve a large number of technical considerations.

Is the Prime Minister aware that until Mr. Khrushchev made this concession of principle we were told that this was the one thing which kept the two sides apart at Geneva, but that as soon as he made the concession the Western delegates appeared to be taken rather aback and started to drag their heels, according to all reports from Geneva?

I do not think that is quite fair because in point of fact the Americans very much reduced the numbers they asked for from the ones they originally thought of.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement made by the Lord President of the Council in the North-East on 5th March, regarding the building of a new power station in the County of Durham, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My noble Friend made no new statement on Government policy, which remains as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in answer to a Question by the hon. Member on 31st January.

Is the Prime Minister aware that over a period of three years now hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House who represent North-East constituencies have continually attempted to press on him how wise it would be to build a new power station in County Durham, but that over that period we have had nothing but contradictions and confusion on this issue, and that now the statement made in the North-East by Lord Hailsham has further complicated and confused the issue? Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that it is Government policy to build a new power station in County Durham?

The building of a power station in County Durham is regarded as important from two points of view, chiefly in the first instance for the use of Durham coal. That has been provided for by the proposed dual-fired station at Kingsnorth on the Thames, which, I understand, will burn not less than two-thirds of its fuel in the shape of coal which will be brought by sea from Durham to the Thames. The other point is the need of a further power station for the needs of the area and it is accepted that that will become necessary, but it is not yet decided at what date it will become necessary or exactly the location in which it should be built.

The Prime Minister will be aware that there is not any firm agreement in regard to burning Durham coal at these power stations and that this is only a promise. The Central Electricity Generating Board has said that it will consider in two years' time whether or not the power station should be built. Surely, if it can be considered in two years' time, the Government could now decide to build a power station in view of the economic problems of the area?

The answer from the fuel point of view is covered by the Kingsnorth project. From the point of view of need, it is a matter for the board as to whether it should be brought forward by a certain period or not, but at present it is not required as such.

Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that provision of a power station in Durham would be one means of attracting industry there in the near future?

The object of a power station is to provide sufficient power. It is considered that there is sufficient power at the moment to meet the needs of industry, but there will come a time, whether in two years or one year, when a further power station will be required.

asked the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the advice he has received from the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration; and what action he proposes to take on the recommendations.

I hope to make a statement shortly. The advice will be published at the same time.

Will the Prime Minister say whether Government action is likely to be in harmony with the "guiding light" they have laid down for personal incomes? Will he tell us why this review body reports to him and not to the Minister of Health? Is there any other wage-fixing body which makes its recommendations direct to the Prime Minister?

With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement which I am to make. In regard to the second part, I am afraid I do not know why the position is as it is, but this review body was originally appointed by me and therefore the report is made officially to me.

asked the Prime Minister what correspondence he has had with the Prime Ministers of Malaya and Australia concerning the military protection of the proposed Malaysian Federation.

So far as British assistance for Malaysia's external defence is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the joint statement of 22nd November, 1961, in which the Prime Minister of Malaya and I agreed that the existing defence agreement between Britain and Malaya should be extended to cover all the territories of Malaysia. The Australian Government were kept fully informed.

In view of the confusion caused by the Tunku's unfortunate statement on this matter this week, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not make any new commitments for the defence of the proposed Malaysian Federation without concerting policy with the Australian Government, who are directly concerned in the matter, and that he will renew his efforts to reach an understanding on the future of Malaysia with the other major Powers in the area, particularly Indonesia and the Philippines?

In regard to the first part of that question, of course we are in close consultation with the Australian Government. The answer to the second part is "Yes".

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland on Clyde-side on 8th March on the allocation of Polaris submarines to Clydeside represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My right hon. Friend made no general statement of policy on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am always delighted when the Secretary of State for Scotland goes out to get jobs for Scotland, but is it not rather unfair to the other interested areas that he should jump the gun on Friday when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty did not make the statement until Monday to the rest of the House and the areas interested in getting Polaris submarines? I do not think that is quite fair to us.

I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland confined himself to expressing the hope that some part of the work might reach Clydeside. I understand that the Admiralty decision which was announced was that while the first two would be built by Vickers the remainder would be built either by Cammell Lairds, of Birkenhead, or Scotts, of Greenock.

Would it not have been wise for the Secretary of State for Scotland in such a delicate matter not to make a speech unless he wants to say something?

I think that it that advice were followed generally it would almost bring our debates to an end.

Is the Prime Minister aware that no Scottish hon. Member would ever accuse the Secretary of State for Scotland of saying anything definite about anything? Will the Prime Minister encourage him, for it is about time that he made a statement on what he proposes to do about the unemployment situation in Scotland?

The Secretary of State has already made a number of definite announcements on projects which are either authorised or going forward and there will be further announcements which he will make soon.