asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total United Kingdom investment abroad, in grants and loans, during 1961–62.

Grants and loans by the Government for less-developed countries totalled £161 million in 1961 and £153 million in 1962. Private investment abroad totalled £328 million in 1961 and £264 million in 1962.

While I welcome these very large sums which we have invested in under-developed countries, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that we should first of all find out what surplus on foreign exchange account we have before making these investments? Can my right hon. Friend say what steps are taken to see what the surplus is before making investments of this sort?

Clearly our ability to give aid must be limited by balance of payments considerations. One of the things that I have in mind is to try to direct aid so far as possible to the surplus capacity of this country and certainly to take into account our balance of payment prospects when fixing the general level.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if shops which make commission payments to agents who sell goods on their behalf furnish details of such payments to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Inspectors of taxes have power to require person carrying on a trade or business to make returns of commissions for services rendered paid to persons not employed by them who received more than £15 in the relevant period; and such returns are obtained in appropriate cases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling that payments made in this way are not being declared for tax, and will he insist that all firm and shops which practise this method of selling are required to declare the earnings of their agents so that no evasion can take place in any section of the community?

As I explained in my Answer, the Inland Revenue has very important powers under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1956, and it uses them wherever it thinks it reasonable and appropriate so to do. If my hon. Friend has in mind particular cases, I am sure that the Inland Revenue, which has the same objectives in mind as he has, would be very happy to look into them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate possible economies in defence expenditure, which is taking a disproportionate share of the country's income and preventing additional expenditure on the social services.

While the possibility of economies in defence, as in other aspects of public expenditure, is constantly under investigation, I do not, in the present state of the world, agree with the allegations contained in the latter part of the Question.

But will not the arms bill exceed £2,000 million a year if and when the Polaris submarines are built? Has not the Prime Minister said that the East-West struggle will be decided not by rockets and bombs but by which side can provide the better and fuller life? How can any British Government solve our serious housing, pensions and hungry nations problems if they waste the country's substance in this way to the extent of £60 a second?

I do not believe that we are wasting the substance of the country in this way. In his Question, the hon. Gentleman refers to the share of the country's income going, on the one hand, to defence and, on the other, to the social services. He should bear in mind that defence expenditure was about 7 per cent. of the gross national product in 1950 and is now about 7·1 per cent., the same as in 1948. Expenditure on the social services was only about 12 per cent. in 1950, and it is now about 16 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this country's defence bill in the immediate years ahead would increase if the Opposition were to refuse to sell arms to other countries which would then order from France and America?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.

Does not the Financial Secretary remember that, when the defence programme was started, there was to be £4,700 million spread over three years, which was to give us absolute security, but, since that time, we have spent five times as much and we are less secure today than when we started?

I do not want to get involved in party political controversy with the hon. Gentleman, but, since he raises these matters, he ought to bear in mind what I said a moment ago. Defence expenditure as a proportion of the gross national product is now running at about 7·1 per cent. In 1952, the year after the Conservative Government came into office, the figure was 10·4 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the headquarters of the Board of Trade to be transferred to Falmouth when the changes in Government buildings take place consequent on the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence.

No, Sir.

Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that Falmouth has been scheduled as a development district for a long time, that there is heavy unemployment there and that not a single new industry has been channelled to Falmouth by the Board of Trade? Does he recall that the Prime Minister told the House last week that there was a committee considering the dispersal of Government Departments from London, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to take the needs of Falmouth into account when the share-out does take place?

The review is being carried out, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, by Sir Gilbert Flemming, who will, I am sure, bear in mind the claims of Falmouth.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the University Grants Committee has drawn his attention to the present levels of payment for postgraduate student demonstrators; and if these were taken into account in the last quinquennial review.

No, Sir.

Is there not a Government responsibility here, since the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research says that proper payment should be made to student demonstrators? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate has not been increased for the last 12 years?

With respect, I think that the hon. Lady will find, when she looks into it, that there is, in fact, no Government responsibility here. The University Grants Committee does not recommend or lay down rates of payment for these people or, indeed, for any university staff except teachers. Payments to the sort of people the hon. Lady has in mind would be covered in a general way by the recurrent grants but are not specifically identified in applications for or approvals of grants.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the index of industrial production now published for January, he will make an estimate of the loss of production suffered by virtue of the cold weather in January and February.

No, Sir. It is not possible to estimate how much of the drop in output was the result of the exceptionally severe weather and how much of other causes.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my estimate that, due to the very cold weather from Christmas to the beginning of March, we may have incurred extra costs of £200 million in loss of production, extra transport costs and so on? Will he take the opportunity to make a statement on this matter emphasising what a long way we have to go to catch up with this loss of production and so on, and emphasising also the need for industry and transport to take all possible precautions lest such a thing should ever happen again?

My hon. Friend's calculations are always persuasive, but I have learnt the unwisdom of accepting too many estimates too easily. The actual effect of the severe weather can be estimated reasonably accurately, I think, only when we have seen the production figures over quite a long period, when we can see the peak effect in January and February and how far the trough comes after that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total amount of business expenses allowed for taxation purposes per annum.

The total amount of the deductions for expenses under Schedule E is given annually in the Board of Inland Revenue's report. The figure for the year 1961–62 is provisionally estimated at about £235 million. This covers all deductions allowed to all Schedule E taxpayers.

If these expenses are being scandalously abused, ought they not to be investigated and stopped? If they are not being abused, ought not the attacks upon the people who use them to be stopped?

As I said, this figure covers all deductions of all Schedule E taxpayers. The information obtained under the special inquiry made on the new form P.11D about expenses and benefits of directors and senior employees is still being analysed. I have as yet seen no evidence of abuse.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that to all intelligent people it is quite apparent that this is one of the biggest rackets in the country? Will he take seriously the fact that the figures he has given to the House, which shocked the House, limited though they are, represent merely a small estimate of what is actually taking place because of the many unscrupulous devices employed by unscrupulous people to cover up what they are doing? Is this not a national disgrace which ought to be tackled by the Government?

That is the sort of wild allegation for which there is no evidence and which does no good to anyone.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply—I must put it in this way—I beg to give notice that I should like to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to minimise the financial losses to retailers which result from changes in Purchase Tax.

I refer the hon. Lady to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on 28th March and to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) on 2nd April.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in spite of the fact that the Hutton Committee in 1953 was unable to find any real solution to this problem, there is injustice to retailers, and will he undertake, since it is now 10 years since the Hutton Committee went into it, to establish another inquiry into the whole structure of Purchase Tax and the possible ways of avoiding injustice to retailers?

That raises very much wider issues. As regards the position of retailers in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Lady, I really do not think, after the investigation made by the Hutton Committee, that any useful purpose would be served by haying yet another one. The difficulty arises only when Purchase Tax is reduced, and I agree that the problem is relevant to the policies of this Government in contrast to those of the Labour Government when Purchase Tax was increased.

Will my hon. Friend accept that this is not only a matter of financial loss or profit even when prices go up? Will he bear in mind that a tremendous amount of time and unproductive labour is expended by chemists in particular when they have literally to re-label with new prices every one of the many commodities in their stocks?

I agree to some extent with what my hon. Friend says, but I really cannot see how one can overcome the difficulties. The suggestion recently made by the chemists, I think, that there should be an adjustment in respect of deliveries during a specific period—say one month—prior to the tax change was the sort of solution which was considered by the Hutton Committee but rejected. I remind the House that many of the members of the Hutton Committee were themselves engaged in trade and would, I am sure, have been only too pleased to find a solution to this problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his proposals in relation to planning and development in northeast England during 1963–64.

I would refer the hon. Member to my Budget statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even the contents of his Budget statement are inadequate to deal with the problem of unemployment in the North-East, and that it is about two and a half years since he promised us that the solution to the problem was in sight? Unemployment figures have mounted since then. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about unemployment in addition to what he has already done?

I think that the proposals which I have made will prove to be of very substantial benefit to these districts.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how very well received his Budget proposals were in the north-east of England, one of the areas which will benefit from them, and by the Press, by the public, and, in fact, by everyone other than the Labour Party?

Is the Chancellor aware that, since his Budget statement, Dorman Long and Co. Ltd. has announced the closure of a large works on the North-East Coast? Do not the Government accept, through the Iron and Steel Board, any responsibility for decisions by iron and steel firms?

Questions on Dorman Long and Co. Ltd. should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. However, in general, any closures in the North-East emphasise the importance of carrying through the Government's measures.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Customs and Excise impose a duty on identi-kits hired from American owners to assist in the detection of crime.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Durham County Police authority was asked to pay an import duty of £262 7s. 4d. for identi-kits hired from the United States of America; and whether he is aware that identi-kits are used solely for the purpose of detecting crime.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Durham County Police authority had to pay import duty on three identi-kits hired from the United States of America to improve the efficiency of the county police service; and if he will arrange for some remission of this fee by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the import duty of £262 7s. 4d. imposed on the Durham County Police authority for the hiring of identi-kits from the United States of America.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the sum of £262 7s. 4d. import duty was charged to the Durham Police authority for the hiring of identi-kits from the United States of America; and if he will seek to have such charges dropped.

I have looked into the question of these identi-kits and decided to remit duty on the importations already made. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering whether to recommend a temporary exemptions order to relieve future importations from duty.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer. I am sure that it will be welcomed. It is in the public interest to grant this relief of duty.

I too am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the proposed remission, but may I ask whether he does not think that he should have a word with the Inland Revenue about this foolish imposition, which is quite unnecessary, in view of the need for these devices in order to detect crime?

I must first correct the right hon. Gentleman. This concerns the Customs and Excise, not the Inland Revenue. Secondly, this duty was properly levied, and the Customs had no alternative but to levy it under the law. I have been able to make an extra-statutory concession on this occasion, which it is right to do.

I had the honour of serving for many years on my county police authority's committee, and I watched it grow from consisting of an isolated village policeman to the efficient force that it is today in detecting national and international crime. We do not propose to accept this additional charge on the police on the advice of the Government, who should accept responsibility for their own inefficiency.

The police authorities have been very efficient in pointing out the difficulties, which I have been able to put right today.

I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but, when looking further into this matter, may I ask him to bear in mind that, if heavy import duties are to be imposed on police authorities which wish to hire these articles for maintaining a high standard of crime detection, they will be reluctant—[Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman is not the Speaker yet.

Order. The exchange of whispered confidences across the Floor of the House makes it very difficult to hear.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, if an import duty is imposed on these devices, police authorities will be reluctant to hire them even though it would mean improving the crime detection figures, which is, apparently, the Government's aim.

I should make it clear that the purpose of the Customs duty in protecting British industry would be completely undermined if public authorities could buy what they wanted free of duty. In this case, as these things are not made in the United Kingdom in any case, it seems sensible to remit the duty.

Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the whole question wants looking into? This matter concerns not only police authorities which wish to use these kits, but can be applied to private industry, which has made application to manufacturers in other parts of Europe and has tried to obtain the same facilities as police authorities are trying to obtain, but has had to pay Customs duty. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole problem should be reconsidered?

I do not see why anyone other than the police should want identi-kits.

The reason for my supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman arising from what he had to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was that this was not only—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this applies not only to identi-kits but to the loan facilities afforded to industries desiring to bring certain things into this country but which have been denied the opportunity to do so because of the Customs duties?

That goes a good deal wider than the original Question about identi-kits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many shillings and pence the purchasing power of the £ sterling, taking 20s. as its value in 1945, decreased from 1945 to 1951, and from 1951 to 1962, respectively.

On the basis of the change in the consumer price index the purchasing power of the £, taken as 20s. in 1945, fell by 5s. 4d. between 1945 and 1951 and by a further 3s. 10d. between 1951 and 1962.

As the Labour Government had the great advantage of the American and Canadian loans, are not these figures a ghastly warning of what would happen if the Socialist Party were returned to power?

Does the Chancellor think that a drop of 3s. 10d. justifies the Conservative Party's claim that it would mend the hole in the housewives' purse?

It justifies confidence in our prospects for the next election.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to implement the recommendation of the Accommodation Committee of 1961 that a central dictation scheme should be set up for the use of Members of Parliament.

A system of this kind would be expensive. If it were to be provided free this would raise issues about the financial privileges of Members.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is no use committees or commissions making recommendations if they are to be completely ignored in this way? Why will not the hon. Gentleman implement this recommendation?

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the recommendation was not ignored. But it is a fact that the Accommodation Committee's Report showed that more Members were opposed to the idea than were in favour of it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price paid to Bairds and Scottish Steel Ltd. when they were nationalised; what was the price at which they were sold back to private enterprise; and what safeguards were laid down in the course of this transaction to protect the jobs of the workers involved.

The price paid on nationalisation was £4·5 million. The recent sale formed part of a larger transaction involving three companies, and the sale price was not apportioned between them. I understand, however, that for book-keeping purposes in the Accounts of the Agency for 1962–63 a sum of £2·95 million will be allocated to Bairds and Scottish Steel Ltd. out of the total consideration of £5·7 million.

Did the Minister take into consideration the fact that under public ownership nearly £2 million of public money was spent on modernising this plant? Does not that prove conclusively that private enterprise has done very well out of this deal? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the panic which this take-over caused in Coatbridge and Airdrie was alarming, to say the least? Could not something be written into these sales agreements in future in order to provide adequate safeguards for employees and to ensure that their jobs are protected for an indefinite period?

In answer to the hon. Member's second point, there is certainly no reason to believe that the commercial prospects of this company have been affected in any way by the sale. With regard to the figures to which I have referred in my Answer, one must bear in mind that other transactions by the Agency have shown a profit. The latest annual report of the Agency shows an excess of realisations over book value cumulative to 30th September, 1962, of over £15 million.

In order to get a balanced picture of this complicated problem, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the South Durham Steel and Iron Co. Ltd., like other companies, was sold back to the public at 27s. 6d. a share and that today the shares stand at 11s. 6d.? Therefore, if justice is to be done to the ordinary shareholders as well as to the steel organisation, one should be borne in mind as much as the other.

I am sure that the whole House will agree that the real yardstick of a company's worth is what it can earn. As the Agency's notice made clear, the prospects of these three companies were not good.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer where and when contracts are being placed for the £2 million worth of diesel locomotives and wagon ferries which he has promised to the East African Common Services Organisation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer where and when contracts are being placed for the £2 million work of sugar machinery which he has promised as additional aid to Pakistan from under-utilised resources in Britain.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer where contracts are to be placed for the £3½ million of steel plates and other steel products which he has promised as additional aid to India from under-utilised resources in Britain; and when they will be awarded.

The placing of these contracts is the responsibility of the Governments receiving the loans. I understand that the diesel locomotives are to be ordered from the English Electric Company at Darlington. The suppliers of the wagon ferries, the sugar machinery, and the steel plates and other steel products are not yet decided. It is in each case a condition of the loan that the contract must be placed in the United Kingdom within a short time.

While welcoming the concept and idea behind the Chancellor's intention to use surplus capacity where unemployment exists, may I ask whether he will reconsider the matter concerning diesel locomotives and enable British Railways, who have a lot of surplus capacity, to use their workshops for supplying diesel locomotives abroad?

That question goes into fairly wide considerations of transport policy, which have been discussed on many occasions. There is, however, capacity in the private enterprise industry, which has been equipped over a long period to meet overseas orders.

With regard to sugar machinery, to which Question No. 24 refers, will the Chancellor make the maximum information available in Scotland so as to provide an opportunity for tenders to be submitted in time?

Yes, Sir, we will do our best to ensure that. I believe that Scotland is rather good at making this type of machinery.

Will the right hon. Gentleman prepare some sort of industrial intinerary for visiting delegations from India and East Africa?

The people who purchase on behalf of those Governments are, I believe, well aware of the capacity which is available in this country.

Will the Chancellor tell them which firms they should visit?

No. It would be quite wrong for the Government to do that. The firms should compete for the orders. The House will, I think, find that in the case of steel plates and other items, the firms with capacity to meet this sort of requirement are almost all within development districts.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is defeating his purpose if he refuses to give this information. Is it not true that his idea is to use surplus capacity in the development districts? Surely, he should produce some kind of guide to enable firms to go to these places.

I am certainly happy that the Board of Trade would be willing to give any information on the subject. I should have thought that the Indian Government would know perfectly well who were the makers of steel plates in this country and who, by and large, are to be found in the North-East and in Scotland.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he intends to make tax reliefs for National Insurance contributions in respect of persons not subject to Income Tax.

I am afraid that successive Chancellors have not found it possible to give relief from Income Tax to people who are not paying Income Tax.

In view of the fact that I have taken a great interest in this problem for a very long time, would not my hon. Friend agree that, if there are Income Tax reliefs in respect of National Insurance contributions, it follows therefrom that people must get their social insurance benefits at a cheaper rate than if they do not get tax reliefs and have to pay the full amount of the new contributions? How does my hon. Friend intend to deal with this inequity?

As my hon. Friend knows—because we have debated this subject in years past—the general rule is that contributions paid to secure a pension under any form of pensions scheme are allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income and that the pension is taxable when it arises. Relief for contributions and liability on the pensions has always been the principle for approved superannuation funds. It was a principle which was endorsed both by the Millard Tucker Committee and by the Royal Commission on Taxation and I believe that it is the right principle.

Does not the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), together with the increasing burden of the National Insurance contribution as it gets higher, point to the unsatisfactory nature of this system? Would it not be far better if we were to reconsider the system of relating payments of this sort to income?

That raises a much wider issue than the Question posed by my hon. Friend, which concerns Income Tax reliefs. I would only say to the hon. Member, with great respect to what he has just said, that we have only recently increased social service benefits, which will be of real help to the people who are outside the range of Income Tax.

Can my hon. Friend explain the justice of the fact that people receive increased social security benefits because they have to pay more for them than those who get them at a cheaper rate? Is not the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) right when he asks whether the time has not arrived to do something to ensure that there is a fair payment for National Insurance benefits? If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope to raise this matter in debate, so I am giving full warning. Cannot we have a better answer than my hon. Friend has been able to give this afternoon?

I will certainly do my best to provide a better answer for my hon. Friend in the course of the debate which, I have no doubt, will arise on the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total authorised credit outstanding to all countries outside the sterling area is for periods of repayment exceeding five years.

Information in the form the hon. Member requests is not readily available. Credit of longer term than six months has to be authorised, and of the 1962 authorisations 21 per cent. cover credit which would not be finally repaid for over five years. The actual amount which will be outstanding after the five years is only a fraction of this.

In thanking the Chancellor for that figure, may I ask whether he is aware that British engineering and other firms are losing contracts to certain West European countries because their credit terms to East European countries are longer than ours, either officially—I notice that the Chancellor shakes his head—or by private under-the-counter schemes?

I keep a very close eye indeed on this matter. I do not accept that so far there is any evidence of what the hon. Member says. On the whole, I think that our credit terms are as good as anybody's. If, however, the hon. Member has any evidence, particularly of unofficial arrangements, I will be glad to have it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as far as I know, the engineering industry is extremely satisfied with the terms now given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek a meeting with European Free Trade Association countries and European Common Market countries to consider the possibility of a joint programme for linking aid to developing countries from areas, such as South-West France, to additional aid being given from North-East England, Merseyside, South-West England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

The main forum for discussing questions of Western aid policy is the Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D. The membership of this Committee includes all the principal donors of aid in the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community, and there would be no advantage in setting up new arrangements.

In the light of the Report of the Clay Committee, can the Chancellor assure us that attention has been brought to this?

I have no doubt that they will be apprised of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement of the number, amounts and incidence of grants and loans under the Local Employment Act provided to the latest date to the appropriate areas in north-east Scotland; how many of those grants and loans were offered and declined respectively; and what were the principal reasons for refusal of the assistance offered.

Since the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. I cannot give separate figures for loans and grants. In the two cases where offers were declined I cannot reveal the amount of assistance which was offered or the reasons for which it was declined. Any of this information

asked the President of the Board of Trade what factors he takes into consideration when deciding where advance factories are to be sited.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply on 15th November to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) and to his supplementary answers at that time.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what weighting is given to high and persistent unemployment in any particular area? Is he aware that I am delighted at his late conversion to the need for an advance factory at Kilwinning Industrial Estate, which has now been conceded despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman rejected the suggestion in an Adjournment debate only a short time ago?

Policies always develop. In reply to the substantive part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, of course high and persistent unemployment is one of the most important factors which come into consideration. There are, however, a number of other factors, of which, I think, the most important is that if an advance factory is being put up there should be reasonable expectation that it will be possible to get a tenant for it. One does not help an area by putting up an advance factory if one cannot get a tenant to come to occupy it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I gave him that assurance? I quoted the fact that only three miles distant, Irvine Town Council had got over 20 firms into its industrial estate

The hon. Gentleman may take it that some of the things mentioned in that debate were taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend in working out this further programme of advance factories.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases he has concluded trade agreements with other countries in which a clause has been included guaranteeing free competition in shipping; and what provision is made to ensure that competition is free and unsubsidised by the Government concerned.

Two post-war trade agreements and five informal trade arrangements include provisions about freedom of competition in shipping. So do two commercial treaties which have not yet entered into force. It is not always easy to ensure that competition in shipping is really free; but Her Majesty's Government maintain a close watch on the position.

In view of the present difficulties of British shipping, is it not important that this free competition really should be free? In the case of the new trade treaty with Japan, will the competition be really free in view of the widespread allegations of Government subsidisation in Japan?

The Japanese Government have agreed not to continue their export subsidies beyond March, 1964.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of Government help being given to the North-East and North-West, through the Local Employment Act, and other schemes for making public money available for new factories and to provide well-paid employment; and the equivalent Government spending in the South-West, where opportunities in new industries are few and average weekly earnings lower.

Total assistance, excluding offers declined, of £8·4 million, £18·0 million and £1·6 million has been offered under the Local Employment Act for projects in the development districts in the North-East, on Merseyside, and in the South-West of England, respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the South-West also has its needs? Must we have unemployment before we can get the help for local industries that we desire?

My hon. Friend will see that the sums of money offered under the Local Employment Act bear quite a close statistical relationship to the number of people wholly unemployed in the development districts in the three areas. For instance, in March this year the wholly unemployed in the North-East totalled 43,700, on Merseyside, 38,700 and in the South-West 5,100. With that in mind, the amount of money offered is about right.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many areas in the North-West, such as Blackburn, which have been struggling to attract new industries in order to keep unemployment at bay, and that they are not getting any financial assistance under the new proposals or under the Local Employment Act? Will the hon. Member take steps to spread this help more widely?

The very concept of this assistance is that development districts should have priority over other areas, although I recognise that some other areas also have their problems and needs. But priority for development districts is implicit in this scheme.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for making Batley and Morley a development district under the Local Employment Act.

None, Sir. Unemployment in these two areas is below the national average.

Is it not the case that the President of the Board of Trade is measuring the problems of industry with the yardstick of unemployment figures only? Is the hon. Member aware that Batley in particular is becoming more and more a place for bed and breakfast for workers who have to travel some distance to places of employment? Does not he realise that new industries are required to revitalise the area?

My right hon. Friend recognises that many areas have their own problems and their own desires, but the fact is that the Local Employment Act puts the responsibility on him to consider high and persistent unemployment. That is clearly the priority. My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that at present Batley and Morley does not qualify under the heading of high and persistent unemployment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a protest was recently made to the Japanese Embassy in London by the National Wool Textile Export Corporation relating to the use of a Bradford company's name on wool cloth which is made by a Japanese firm and being sold in Japan; and what action he is taking to protect the British wool textile industry against this method of trading.

Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that prompt action was taken by the Japanese and that the action complained of has now ceased. My right hon. Friend is always ready to look into complaints of this nature and, if necessary, to take them up with the Japanese authorities.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I ask whether he is aware that the industry is extremely concerned about this practice by Japanese manufacturers? Is he further aware that trade marks are being registered by Japanese firms in Japan with such names as "London Bridge", "Britannia", "Angus Tweed" and the like, which are misleading to customers outside Japan? Will the President of the Board of Trade make strong representations to the Japanese Government that where British names are used, and particularly where they are printed in English, distinctly underneath each trade mark should be printed the words "Made in Japan" so that customers throughout the world will not be misled by this kind of practice, which is resented in our wool textile industry?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, both the British and Japanese Governments are exceedingly concerned about this matter. Perhaps I might enlist his aid in recommending British industries to approach their opposite numbers in Japan, whom they will find to be helpful.

Does the hon. Gentleman's original answer intend to convey, as I hope it does, that he stands by the view, recently expressed by the President of the Board of Trade, that the efficient and proper activity of the Japanese courts is a matter with which we should be content?

Yes, Sir.