asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with his future plans for consumer protection in general and the possible licensing of door-to-door salesmen in particular, he will make a special investigation into the present methods followed in connection with the sale in this country of an encyclopaedia, whose name has been sent to him.

On the licensing of doorstep salesmen, I await the views of the Consumer Council. In considering the matter I, and no doubt the Council also, will take full account of all sales methods used, including those to sell encyclopaedias.

Is the Minister aware that I have received a large number of complaints against the American high pressure method of salesmen selling the Encyclopaedia Britannica by gaining entrance and by pretending to be market research workers and so on, and also against the method of selling Collier's Encyclopaedia? Can the Minister say whether there have been any improvements in the methods of selling?

Not in regard to Colliers, but as far as the Encyclopaedia Britannica is concerned the company has told my Department that it has recently made a number of changes in its methods, including, for example, instructions to its sales staff to discontinue the market survey approach and the making of repeated telephone calls.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the best way of dealing with this situation is to license the firms and not the salesmen, and that the sanction which the Government could then have against misuse would be very much stronger?

This is a matter which the Consumer Council is investigating, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we are awaiting its recommendations I am sure that it has this point in mind.

Is the Minister aware that this is not only confined to the encyclopaedia salesmen but covers a greater field? I have already had correspondence with him about it. When does he consider that the Consumer Council will report; if it will be some length of time, will he consider taking action urgently, bringing legislation forward incorporating something in the nature of the 1964 Hire-Purchase Act whereby a certain period of time has to elapse before the agreement becomes binding?

The Consumer Council inquiry is very wide and will cover the points that the hon. Member wrote to me about. I hope that the inquiry will not take too long, but we must wait for it to be completed and see what its recommendations are before we move forward with legislation.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which the public can protect itself against hard selling methods of this kind is by supporting the various appropriate consumer organisations and, in this context, the Advertising Inquiry Council, which recently sent a deputation to his Department?

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many deputations he has received, or has agreed to receive, from British industries in regard to the adverse effect the 15 per cent. import surcharge has had on their export potential.

Four deputations were received by my hon. Friends the Ministers of State after the import charge was imposed. At these meetings many aspects of the charge were raised, including its effect on exports. No other meetings have been arranged.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is a great deal of antagonism among importers of our goods because the fact that he has now been able to reduce the surcharge by 5 per cent. shows that it wag never necessary to impose it at the rate of 15 per cent., plus the fact that the goods which are now being delivered are in respect of orders placed well before the surcharge was imposed?

No, Sir, there is no evidence that the surcharge has affected our exports. The fact is that British exports were falling up to the time when the surcharge was imposed and other measures were taken and since then they have been rising.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view he has just expressed is not shared by large numbers of British exporters? Will he enlighten the House on two points which are puzzling many people? First, if the surcharge, at a level of 15 per cent., has had any significant effect so far on the level of imports, how can he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the two months' advance notice of the cut will not cause an artificial holding off until after 27th April, followed thereafter by a pent-up flood of imports? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a very important point. Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that advance notice will have very little effect, why has he deferred the operative date for two months?

The view that I expressed is supported by the figures. The other fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed is that since the surcharge was imposed imports of goods subject to the surcharge have actually been reduced. We have, therefore, made enough progress to be able to make this first relaxation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to encourage industry and Government Departments to locate their offices in seaside areas and outside the Greater London area.

In administering the proposed control of office development, the Board of Trade expects to take account, among other factors, of the needs of some seaside areas for office employment.

Do the Government realise the advantage to health alone of moving to the seaside, especially the seaside areas of north-east Essex? Can he say what steps he is taking? Does he realise that this is a very urgent probof British business?

If I even hinted that a certain area would be receiving favourable consideration scores of hon. Members would immediately protest. It is too early to say where office development will be steered until comprehensive studies in relation to office location have been completed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the proposed transfer of the Government Department—the Post Office Savings Division—from Morecambe? Will he bear in mind the desirability of replacing this work with alternative Government work?

We will look into the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the high pressure sales techniques employed by dancing schools, health clubs, and hair clinics to force people into signing contracts involving substantial sums of money; and whether he will take steps to apply a waiting period in respect of these agreements.

Except in the case of one company, which has been discussed this week, Universal Health Studios Ltd., I have received no complaints about high pressure salesmanship by businesses of these kinds but I am considering whether further legislation is necessary and practicable.

Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that many complaints have been made against this type of activity, which has been largely imported from the United States of America? Is it not desirable to do something to stop this behaviour, which reflects very badly and unreasonably on the whole of British business?

If the hon. Member will read the reply that I made in the Adjournment debate on Tuesday, I think he will find that I have covered his point.

My hon. Friend mentioned Universal Health Studios Ltd. Did not he receive an undertaking from that firm that it would have a cooling-off period? What is happening to that?

My hon. Friend has a later Question on that subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total debit or credit on Canadian trade with the United Kingdom in respect of the latest available 10 years; and how the balance has been settled.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the total debit or credit on Canadian trade with the United Kingdom over the last 10 years; and how the balance has been settled.

Figures of our trade with Canada can be obtained from Account IV of the Trade and Navigation Accounts covering this period. It is not possible to say how the trade balance with a single country has been financed.

Is it not the case that the deficit has been about £1,500 million over the past ten years, and that at least some of that deficit will have to be financed by the payment of gold and dollars? Can he say how long the Government will allow a state of affairs to continue which puts such a grossly unfair burden on this country?

It is true that we have a very serious trade deficit with Canada, which gives us great concern. I have recently made repeated representations to the Canadian authorities about this, and we are having further discussions about it.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this serious situation has developed very much over the last ten years and that hon. Members on this side of the House regard it as a very serious matter?

Yes. It certainly has become worse in recent years. That is one reason why we are attempting to remedy it.

Is it not a fact that, because of tariff barriers, it is much more difficult for many British manufacturers to sell in Canada than in the United States? Is it not quite unfair that our manufacturers should have to face these very high tariffs and a system which amounts almost to a national economic autocracy, when we have this extraordinarily unfavourable balance with Canada?

There are particular difficulties connected with anti-dumping duties, as the hon. Member knows. We are making representations about this. I am sure that the Canadian authorities will also pay attention to what the hon. Member has said today.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what specific steps he is taking at the present time to promote increased trade with the United States of America.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Battersea South (Mr. Perry) on 1st February. I am consulting the British National Export Council and the Committee for Exports to the U.S.A. about the best way of putting these measures into effect in the United States.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—and this refers also to the last Question—that we shall have to earn more American dollars this year because, for example, exports of British motor cars will fall owing to the recent agreement between America and Canada under which they have a free trade in motor cars, leaving a tariff imposed against this country? Will he make the strongest protest to the Canadian Government against this discrimination which operates against one of their Commonwealth partners?

Yes. I have protested personally to both the American and Canadian authorities about this, and we are in discussion how to find the best way out of it. As for exports to the United States generally, as the hon. Member knows there is to be a permanent British trade centre in New York and a series of store promotions and British weeks—and all the export measures that I announced a month ago are available in respect of exports to the United States.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this action by the United States and Canada conflicts with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?

This will be discussed in G.A.T.T., where there will be an opportunity for other countries to represent their views.

In order to improve our trade with the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend consider sending an exhibition ship there? Does he realise that if he sent the "Britannia" chock-full of Scotch whisky our exports would increase extraordinarily?

I think that we will start with the proposed trade centre in New York.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consolidate the Acts of Parliament which deal with merchant shipping or any group of such Acts which deal with specific aspects of shipping as was done in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which was itself a consolidating Measure.

It would not be worthwhile to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts without revising them at the same time. Complete revision would require wide consultations and give rise to a heavy load of work. I am not satisfied that we should be justified in undertaking this at present. I hope that we shall be able to revise the Acts gradually by legislation dealing with the different subjects separately but this is bound to take a considerable time.

Will the hon. Gentleman say when he is going to make a start with this piecemeal consolidation? Will this not be a useful piece of legal reform for the second 100 not-so-dynamic days? Is not one of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman is experiencing that it is not now any longer possible to define what is a British ship?

I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman should be so critical about the reply he has received. He put four similar questions to the previous Administration during the last 18 months and the then Minister of Transport briefly told him, "No". We have started talks in my Department with the shipowners and seafarers with a view to gradually revising the legislation.

Would not the hon. Gentleman think this possibly one of the matters on which the new Law Reform Commissioners might have something to say, or are they to be useless for this kind of law reform?

It is not necessary to go to them for this type of legislation. The Board of Trade, in conjunction with the shipowners and seafarers, is gradually revising this legislation. We have started on the process.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of talks between the two consortia and the Government on nuclear propulsion.

No talks are at present in progress.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting behind very many of the leading maritime nations in the development of a nuclear ship? Is he aware that only two days ago his right hon. Friend said that the A.E.A. was ready to design a reactor for trials at sea and that it admitted that we will not get any further until we have a nuclear reactor at sea?

Technically, the Atomic Energy Authority has said that we can go ahead. The point is that the Authority has not yet completed its review. We started three months ago to find out whether (a) it should be a test bed at sea and further money should be spent on research and development, or (b) whether there is an economic nuclear unit available and, if that were so and we took a decision to go ahead, whether we could by-pass other nations who use nuclear propulsion units.

Surely it is well known that there is no economic reactor at present and that the whole argument is that we need experience of how these things work at sea and how to cope with the problem of screening, on which other nations are making rapid strides?

We must wait until the review is complete before taking a final decision.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it was the long period of shilly-shallying on the part of the previous Administration which has left us so far behind today?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that comment. He has reinforced the point which I have already expressed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made of shipyards overseas which build or plan to build nuclear merchant ships; and if he will take the results of this study into account before reaching his decision on the British nuclear powered merchant ship.

The Government are keeping in touch with developments overseas and will take all the available information into account in reaching a decision.

Has the Minister of State studied this report that a well-known foreign shipowner is disposing of his fleet with a view to replacing it with a nuclear-powered fleet to be built in a foreign shipyard? Should that not be taken into account when studying this problem.

Certainly.

Could the Minister of State say when he hopes to be able to reach a decision about maritime nuclear reactors?

I cannot say at this stage I have told the hon. Member time and time again that it is subject to a review. He should not be complaining bitterly about three or four months' study when the previous Administration made no progress whatsoever.

Does the Minister of State not recall that there was a report by the Powell Committee? Exactly what more does he want to find out from his current review than has been already published by the Powell Committee?

The right hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight. First of all, it was the Padmore Committee which the previous Administration were responsible for setting up. He was himself responsible for debating the Padmore Committee Report on the Floor of the House. No doubt he will remember that he defended their conclusions, which were inconclusive.

Whilst conceding that I made a mistake about the name, which is no doubt a matter of great seriousness and great importance to the House, will the hon. Gentleman answer the Question? What more does he hope to get than he has already out of the Report of that Committee?

The determination to what extent public money should be spent on the project.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the result of discussions with the Code of Advertising Practice Committee and the Advertising Standards Authority and any other organisation that gives guidance to newspapers in these matters as to advertisements by the Universal Health Studios Limited.

I understand that the Code of Advertising Practices Committee has recommended that all advertisements by this company should be suspended.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said in that connection. Will he explain the mystery of why he wrote to me at the beginning of January stating that he had come to an agreement at this firm, that they should cut the price and show the cost in the advertisement, which never materialised? Was it one more agreement which was not kept by the Universal Health Studios Limited?

There was no agreement. The Board of Trade cannot make agreements of this kind. As a result of publicity and pressure the company wrote to say it would discontinue this kind of advertising. I do not know why it has continued not to show the cost in its advertisement. As I explained during the Adjournment debate on Tuesday, I have no power to require the company to do so. No doubt the voluntary control bodies will consider this point when the lifting of their ban is being discussed.

Can my hon. Friend say what right an unofficial body which he has mentioned has to include the, name "Authority" in its title? When it is reconsidered by the advertising industry, will he ask that they choose a less misleading one?

That is entirely another question. The relationship between the Code of Advertising Practice Committee and the Advertising Standards Authority is, I think, well known to my hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the nature of the communication which was sent to him by the Deputy Director of the Consumer Council in respect of the practices of the Universal Health Studios Limited.

An acknowledgment of the communication to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend on 5th February.

I do not understand what that means. Will my hon. Friend now give an answer to the question put before, what about the cooling-off period, or the waiting period? He said he had some agreement with the Universal Health Studios Limited. Why has not it been carried out?

That supplementary question does not arise out of the Answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a Question earlier and, in reply, the Minister said that there was a Question on the Order Paper which he would answer later.

A supplementary question must arise out of the Answer. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question arose out of this Answer.

Is the Minister aware that a number of Americans seem to be coming to this country and forming these sort of bogus companies? Is he aware that one called Readers Service Ltd. has now gone into liquidation? Would he warn the appropriate bodies and the newspapers that there are these Americans who come to this country to form these high pressure sales companies?

The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised and the matter raised by my hon. Friend are being considered. The question of a cooling-off period in this kind of contract is a very difficult one; it has all kinds of legal snags. We are giving it active consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, what discussions he has now had with the Attorney-General regarding continuing reports of undesirable sales-promotion techniques used by the Universal Health Studios Limited; and if he will make a statement.

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 5th February, the Board of Trade have sent details of complaints made by members of the public about this company's methods to the Metropolitan Police. I understand that the police are making inquiries about some of the complaints, and I do not think that it would be in the public interest that I should say any more.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether in that correspondence he has considered whether the people who give professional health services in the studios should have professional qualifications? Will he bear in mind the danger of unqualified people giving such technical advice?

That is a matter which ought to be discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. In fact, we have had one or two preliminary discussions on this matter.

Is it true that Universal Health Studios Limited have invited the police to make an investigation into their affairs and that the police have refused that invitation?

I think that if the hon. Member looks up the invitation which was made by Universal Health Studios he will find that it was for an investigation into their contract, and method of dealing with contracts and so on. I would prefer to leave this matter, because the police have, I understand, taken that into consideration, too.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what official publicity will be given to the new British Standard Specification for school blazer cloth to ensure that parents of schoolchildren are aware of it.

The responsibility for giving publicity to British Standards rests of course with the British Standards Institution, which is an independent body. I understand, however, that the Institution's Press release about the standard received very good coverage in the national, provincial and trade Press.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I welcome the new standard which is long overdue and will be a great help to the hard-pressed parents of schoolchildren. Is my hon. Friend aware that the standard is less than the R.T.S.A. which some manufacturers have adopted? Does he see any possibility of the standard being raised in the near future and, if not, would he look into the possibility?

This is a question which possibly could be discussed by the British Standards Institution and the Retailing Trading Standards Association, but at least we have a standard in a sphere where I agree that it has been greatly needed. I hope that British manufacturers will adopt the standard and that school authorities will encourage the use of any cloth which complies with it.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Standards Institution does a considerable amount of very good work? Would he consider consulting its Council about the appointment of more consumer element to the Committee considering standards? Does he think that too frequently standards are arranged by manufacturers agreeing on the standard and that further consideration should be taken on the consumer side?

I understand that discussions on this matter are going on with the British Standards Institution and the Consumer Council. The Council is being increasingly represented in this kind of work.

asked the President of the Board of Trade by what percentage Japanese shipbuilding yards undercut best British shipyard tenders for new orders; and what steps he intends to take to help close this gap.

There is no official information about British or foreign prices for ships. Where there are differences in price, these seem to vary greatly according to the type of ship. The Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee will consider what action might help the British shipbuilding industry to become more competitive in world markets.

In view of the recent visit by the hon. Gentleman to Japan and the urgency of this problem, will he take immediate steps to see that such matters as costing, the level of capital investment, the credit facilities available and problems of demarcation are dealt with urgently in order that we may be fully competitive in this important field?

All these matters will be subject to inquiry by the Committee.

Can the hon. Member say what has happened to the Shipbuilding Committee of Inquiry? Has it started work, and when can we expect a report?

It started work ten days ago, and I had the pleasure of addressing it just over a week ago.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the objective way in which he reported on the Japanese shipping industry and its relationship in the world situation was very much admired in many quarters?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to provide a system of marking boots and shoes to ensure that customers are made aware of materials used in their manufacture.

The revised merchandise marks legislation—which incidentally will have to have a new name when we have finished with it—which I am preparing will provide, as recommended by the Molony Committee, a general power to require informative labelling of specified classes of goods.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, is he aware that customers up and down the country are at the moment buying footwear, much of it very shoddy, without any idea of what it is made of? Would he not think that this was something which should be urgently considered as a sensible measure of consumer protection?

I agree that it is an urgent matter, and we will introduce the legislation I have mentioned as soon as is practicable.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to make available to British and foreign shipowners a line of credit at a modest rate, in order to attract shipbuilding orders back to this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that British shipowners are enabled to build ships in British shipyards on loan terms which are at least as favourable as those available to their competitors.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for improving credit facilities for British shipowners seeking to build ships in British shipyards.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek to make special loan facilities available to British shipowners for orders placed in British yards.

Following my recent announcement of improved credit facilities for exports, orders exceeding a quarter of a million tons have been placed in British yards by foreign owners and the number of foreign inquiries has increased. I have no evidence that the credit facilities available at present to British shipowners adversely affect their competitive position.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing feeling that something useful on these lines is needed? Will he have another look at this in view of the necessity to help shipowners and shipbuilders?

We are certainly looking at this continuously, but since these credit facilities were improved by the present Government orders for shipbuilding have increased and the position is much more encouraging.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the methods which the Government have chosen to assist the shipbuilding industry are important to that industry, they are not the best which might be chosen if the results are to damage the shipowning industry of this country, which is the natural and obvious customer of the shipbuilding industry and, therefore, must be maintained primarily?

I do not think they are, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the investment allowance is available to the British shipowners.

While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in recent weeks the credit facilities have been beneficial to British shipyards, is he aware that they are still far short of the boost given under the shipbuilding credit facilities of a year or so ago, and that if those were reintroduced that would be a great help?

For the long-term solution we are looking to the conclusions of the shipbuilding inquiry, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether it would be possible to refer this matter to the inquiry? Could they not be asked to make an interim report before the conclusion of their lengthy and full report?

I see no reason why they should not cover this issue in their discussions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what alternative markets the Government have obtained in view of the loss of £150 million of South African arms orders over the next three years.

The figure quoted by the hon. Member bears no relation to our past trade, and the question of replacing exports of this magnitude does not arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the figures which I have quoted are those which were given by the South African Minister of Defence and have not been challenged by Her Majesty's Government? Are not all the Prime Minister's glossy T.V. exhortations to export effort mocked by deliberate sacrifice to ideological prejudice and pressure of vast orders which are fully in the interests of Western and Commonwealth defence? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that we are being replaced in this huge expanding market, not only by our N.A.T.O. allies, but by Czechoslovakia, East Germany and other Communist leaders of the South Africa boycott brigade?

Whatever the source of the hon. Member's figures, they are incorrect. While in the matter of arms traffic we have now come into line with the United Nations, the United States and Canada, our peaceful trade in both directions with South Africa continues to increase.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although we have had thirteen years of Tory failure, we have not yet sunk so low that we have to earn our living selling arms to support the apartheid policy in South Africa? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if we wished to have satisfactory trade with South Africa, in practice, the arms trade is likely to ruin the peaceful trade because it will lead to the killing of Africans?

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is perfectly right in saying that South Africa will have no difficulty in getting the arms which she wants from other sources? Furthermore, will he urgently tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that when he next makes a national appeal on television for everyone else in the country to change their attitudes on exports, it would help if he would set an example by changing his own attitude on export opportunities to South Africa of arms which are clearly not designed for internal repression?

Whatever South Africa does, we prefer to keep our obligations to the United Nations.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that under the Charter of the United Nations every country is protected in its right to acquire arms for external defence?

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a particular United Nations Resolution relating to this traffic. We are closely observing this.

rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison, for the next Question please.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade what conversations and communications his Department has had with tobacco buyers regarding the implications of a unilateral declaration of Rhodesia's independence.

Board of Trade officials have had confidential discussions on tobacco supply problems with representatives of some of the major manufacturing companies. It was agreed that the substance of these discussions would not be disclosed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great concern was felt in Rhodesia because of certain discussions, which I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman cannot disclose? In view of the visit of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Rhodesia, which we welcome, and which we hope will lead to a good understanding with the people of Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "All the people of Rhodesia?"] Of course, all the people of Rhodesia. May we understand that there will be no kind of economic menaces towards Rhodesia? Will he bear in mind the grave consequences to the balance of payments if we were forced to purchase perhaps 100 million dollars worth of leaf tobacco across the exchange?

So long as the Rhodesian Government refrain from any extreme step, I do not think that any of these difficulties need arise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the continuing high level of unemployment in the Merseyside area, what steps are being taken to introduce new industries into the area; and what proposals he has for the introduction and development of new publicly-owned scientifically-based industries in the area.

The rate of unemployment on Merseyside in January was the lowest for that month in the last five years. During this time a considerable amount of new industry entered the area. I shall encourage more to do so, whether publicly-owned or otherwise. Two of the factories in the new programme of publicly-owned advance factories will be on Merseyside.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement that unemployment on Merseyside has been the lowest for the last five years will be very welcome on Merseyside, particularly in view of the fact that the basic reason for high unemployment on Merseyside has been the policies pursued by the Tory Government?

Rubbish.

On the other hand, is my right hon. Friend prepared to indicate whether any steps are being taken for consultations with the Ministry of Overseas Development with a view to exports going from Merseyside to the under-developed areas?

I agree that a great deal more needs to be done, and I am discussing various proposals with my right hon. Friend.

Will the President of the Board of Trade draw to the attention of industry generally that, despite the fact that British taxpayers' money is building them more industrial premises, at the end of last year over one million square feet of industrial premises were vacant on Merseyside?

I was not aware of that figure, but if it is correct I will certainly draw it to the attention of those concerned.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will restore Scarborough to the list of development areas in view of the fact that the unemployment figure there is now 5·5 per cent.

The level of unemployment in this area, which averaged 3·8 per cent. in 1964, does not justify restoring it to the list of development districts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that again, in view of the fact that the latest Ministry of Labour figures show that the present unemployment in the north-east special area is 3·1 per cent. and that the Ministry of Labour figure for Scarborough last year is an average of 4 per cent.?

I realise that the Scarborough area has a difficult seasonal problem, but the hon. Member knows that even if an area is not scheduled as a development district it is possible to grant I.D.C.s more freely there than one would in a really congested area.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what contribution the tariff dismantling between the European Free Trade Association countries has had on keeping prices down.

A group of experts in E.F.T.A. is studying this subject. Many factors influence prices, and it is difficult to isolate the effects of tariff reductions.

Will the right hon Gentleman ask them particularly to find out whether, when the tariffs are being reduced, the exporters put their prices up at the same time?

I believe that the E.F.T.A tariff reductions have left some prices lower in this country than they would otherwise have been, but it would be difficult to establish this precisely and statistically at present. We are ourselves making a study of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account in his own studies the effect of the surcharge on keeping prices up?

As the surcharge is now going down, we can look for some relief there, too.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Power in view of the extra work involved in the renationalisation of steel.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint another Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power with a seat in this House, in view of the heavy work involved in the proposed legislation to do with the steel industry.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Bowden would make an excellent choice for an appointment of this nature? Is he further aware that the noble Lord's views correspond much more accurately with those in the country than do the right hon. Gentleman's views on the subject of steel nationalisation? If he expects other people to give up their out-of-date views, would it not be a good example for him to give up his out-of-date views about steel nationalisation?

If the House looks at what my right hon. Friend said, I think they will find that his remarks do not bear the construction put on them by the hon. Member. I was asked whether I would recommend the appointment of an additional Parliamentary Secretary. I have the fullest confidence in my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to meet any calls put upon them.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Bowden said that the Government's steel nationalisation plans were in jeopardy unless they were modified to help the Liberal Party to agree with them? Will the Prime Minister say what steps he proposes to take to modify steel nationalisation so as to help the Liberal Party to agree with him?

The Government will continue to put forward the proposals which they think are right in the interests of the nation, whether the Liberal Party agree with them or not.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that steel is a major factor in our balance of payments situation, that last year we paid £106 million for steel and iron imports which could and should have been made in this country, and that, in general, the case for steel nationalisation is so overwhelming that there will be no difficulty at all?

I think that the figures o a the balance of payments for exports and imports were very authoritatively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power when this matter was last debated in the House. I seem to recall that on that occasion the House took a very wise decision when called upon to vote on this matter, and it will no doubt do so again.

Does the Prime Minister realise that these Questions are directed to the burden of work within the Department? Does he realise that the meeting between the Minister and the leaders of the steel industry last week was only the second meeting and that this consisted largely of the leaders of the industry telling the Minister that his speeches were harming the steel industry? Does he further realise that the undertaking to which the Prime Minister assented in the debate about firms with multiple interests—he knows the point well—has never been made to the House? Either these Ministers are overworked or they are inefficient. Which is it?

The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance, no doubt, to make those points when the matter is debated once again.

When?

When it appears in the weekly announcement of next week's business by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We all know the impatience with which the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons which have nothing to do with steel, is awaiting this announcement. I have no doubt that, on that occasion, he will express the views of the steelmasters as fully and as slantedly as he has today.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the undertaking of full consultation was given not only to the steel industry but to industry and consumers generally in this country? Does he further realise that these consultations have turned out to be a farce, and will he see that these consultations are genuinely undertaken from now on?

In view of the need for these consultations, I cannot quite understand, except for the reason I hinted at, why the right hon. Gentleman is so impatient to bring the matter forward.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegations and assertions which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are making are purely "phoney" and that they are more concerned with what we are going to do on the question of land than on the question of steel?

Answer.

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the workings of the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

rose—

Order. We really must make some progress.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, made at the weekend 6th-7th February at Swadlincote, Derbyshire, on the subject of the aircraft industry, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend said on that occasion to aircraft workers protesting about losing their jobs that if we were going to fall at this first attempt, over selfishness, what chance had we of clearing the other and bigger fences which were to come? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the aircraft workers are selfish in this regard, and may we have some knowledge as to what the other and bigger fences to come are?

I have seen the full report of my right hon. Friend's speech. I think that the reference made by my right hon. Friend was to the need—which, I thought, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been proclaiming for years—for some shift between industries in this country. I believe that the aircraft workers—and I think that this will prove at the end of the day to be the case with the aircraft employers—have shown very real understanding of the need for change in this respect, and I believe that everyone recognises that in addition to the problems of the industry, about which we are certainly very concerned, there is also the problem of the interests of the taxpayer.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he is now taking to promote economic unity between the European Free Trade Association and the Common Market.

Our principal task now is to make a success of the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations and so lower the tariff barrier between the two groups. We for our part will do all we can to achieve this. For the rest, we shall try to harmonise policy where we usefully can through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Western European Union and the Council of Europe, as well as through bilateral discussions.

While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, which I will study, may I ask him to say whether he would dissociate himself from the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)—whom even the Economist described at "woolly"—to the effect that we should sign the Treaty of Rome on the dotted line? Would he, secondly, say what practical, functional steps the Government are taking to build a bridge between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market?

I made it clear last week that there is no question whatever of our being invited or having any opportunity for discussing at present the question of adherence to the Treaty of Rome or in other ways to join the E.E.C. I have stated on a number of occasions the conditions which we would insist must be provided for there to be any question of negotiation. To answer the hon. Gentleman's second point—which is a very important one—I hope, in meetings I shall be having in Bonn, Paris and elsewhere in the next few months, to see whether there are any other means, apart from those which I have given in my Answer, of building a bridge between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C.

While it is apparent that we cannot just sign the Treaty of Rome without consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is it not the case that if the Tory Party is serious in its new-found desire to get into the Common Market, we must accept the principles behind the Treaty of Rome? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have any consultations with our E.F.T.A. partners as to a general approach to the Six to see, if an opportunity should arise in future, how far we could make a joint application to join?

While welcoming the fact that the Liberal Party accepts the first of the five conditions which we laid down, the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I have to say that I cannot answer for the Conservative Party in answer to his first point.

Really.

I am not quite sure who could, either. To answer the right hon. Gentleman's second point, we are certainly prepared to discuss this question with our colleagues in E.F.T.A. There have been a number of interesting proposals put forward from all sides of the House during the last two or three years and it may be that the chance of one or two of them becoming more effective may be greater now than it was.

Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's statement that he sees no possibility whatever of our entering into any negotiations with the Common Market and that, therefore, it must be a matter between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market countries?

From the point of view of British entry, I should have thought that it is generally agreed on all sides of the House that there is not at present any proposition by which we could enter into such negotiations. If the situation were to change, then I have made quite clear the conditions we would want to see fulfilled before there could be negotiations.

To ask the Prime Minister, if the public speech made at Stoke on 6th February by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the subject of expenditure on armaments represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hamilton. Question No. 5.

indicated dissent.

Go on. Ask it.

indicated dissent. [Interruption.]

Order. Too much enthusiasm frustrates my efforts to secure progress.

Ask it.

indicated dissent.

I regret that. I have a very good Answer.

Who fixed it?

On a point of order. Would it not be possible, with your permission and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to answer Question Q5 which he has expressed himself as itching to answer?

However irritating, the answer cannot be given now.

asked the Prime Minister if he will have consultations with the Governor of the Bank of England, Lord Cromer, on the problems of the national economy.

asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England on the problems of the national economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will review the procedure for consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of the Bank of England with regard to the planning of economic policy.

Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I made the Government's position on this question clear in speeches last weekend. We welcome advice from any quarter, particularly from those who have the right and duty to give it, as the Governor of the Bank of England has. The Government agree with him that the total expenditure of the country, public and private, capital and current, should not exceed the resources that can be made available. Within that total, the division between public and private expenditure is for the Government to decide, subject to the final authority of this House. On consultation, therefore, I see no need to change the existing arrangements which provide for informal consultation whenever necessary.

In view of the wise advice given by the Governor of the Bank of England, will the Prime Minister do everything he can to see that money can grow in the pockets of the individual rather than in the coffers of the State? [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the return on capital in the nationalised industries, which have had capital investment of £4,500 million over the last 10 years; that is, in the nationalised coal, gas and electricity industries?

I was interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman that Gladstonian doctrine of the fructification of private expenditure. I would have expected to hear that from the Liberal bench, but nevertheless we got it. The advice given by the Governor has been given by him and his predecessor to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, but in fact I think that the position has always been in this House, if I may now quote Disraeli, that expenditure depends on policy, and the Estimates presented by the Government to the House earlier this week are the result of policies and of commitments which have been entered into over a period of years. If any hon. Member has really valuable suggestions to make for reducing expenditure, he must call in question some of the policies which, indeed, all parties in the House have accepted.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in so far as Lord Cromer was urging the Government to slash military expenditure overseas, he was talking jolly good, sound sense, but that in so far as he was talking about slashing home expenditure, my right hon. Friend may as well appoint Ted Hill to the post?

I hope that, despite that, my hon. Friend will re-table Question No. 5, which I am really itching to answer. As to his present supplementary on Question No. 7, I think that the whole House will agree, and all of us have said this in the debates on defence, that it is essential to get down to a minimum overseas expenditure, because it is not only a drain on Government expenditure; it is also a severe drain on our balance of payments.

As to home public expenditure, the situation was clearly explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. We have to see that the total call on resources matches the resources which can be made available. As between public and private, it is a matter of policy for the House to decide now and in successive Supply debates.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the views expressed by the Governor of the Bank of England correspond precisely with those of our international creditors and that if he disregards these views he will have considerable difficulty in renewing the international credits which have been necessitated by the Government's mishandling of our economic affairs?