asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the trade balance between this country and Norway in January, 1964, and in January, 1965, respectively.

Figures of our trade with Norway can be obtained from page 283 of the Overseas Trade Accounts for January, 1965.

Whatever the figures are, does not this appear to be an example where the import surcharge has converted a favourable trade balance into an adverse trade balance?

No, Sir. The whole of the drop in our exports to Norway between January, 1964, and January, 1965, is accounted for by the single item "Ships and Boats" which fell from £3·6 million to £10,000. The value of this item is bound to vary greatly in individual months.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has of an accumulation of imports until after 27th April; and what changes in the level of imports he anticipates in the month of May.

There is some evidence that shipments have been deferred until after 26th April, but it is too early to judge what these will amount to. It is not the practice to publish estimates of future imports.

Are there not reports of the widest hold-up of goods on this occasion, and will the Government take steps on the next occasion before they reduce the surcharge not to give advance notice so that this does not happen again?

We are not apprehensive of very serious congestion in the docks. Indeed, we feel that some reports of an anticipatory kind may well be exaggerated.

Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not trying to minimise the consequences of the Government's action. Does he deny the reports which we have all seen in the newspapers that goods have been held back by the Scandinavian countries, Italy, France, Germany and Belgium, and also that vessels have had to be specially chartered in order to deliver the goods which have been delayed?

That could perhaps be put as, "Does the Minister deny the fact?" because he is not responsible for reports in newspapers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for further incentives for exporters.

My right hon. Friend has at present no addition to make to the new measures which he announced on 8th April, but is keeping the matter under review.

Does not the Minister of State recognise and agree that the concessions which the Government have gained are as nothing compared with the damage that they are inflicting the whole time on our exporting companies by the petty and vindictive measures taken in the Finance Bill?

On the contrary, I would suggest that the figures of exports in the first three months of this year give tangible evidence of an improvement consequent upon the Government's measures.

Would the hon. Gentleman have words with his right hon. Friend in order to encourage exports and to ensure that this new step of the Government today of a very severe further credit squeeze is not applied by the banks to companies which are dealing to a very large extent with exports and export orders?

These are questions obviously for consideration.

Are not the Government considering the arrangements for cheap export finance irrespective of the period of credit?

My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend included in his last statement on 8th April a number of measures for improving credit facilities. These continue to remain under review.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now satisfied that the interior design of the Q4 will reflect the highest standards of modern industrial Britain; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what official consultations he has now had with Messrs. John Brown Limited and Cunard Limited respecting the interior design of the Q4.

The discussions between Cunard and the Council of Industrial Design, which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) on 4th March, are continuing. The company is well aware of the Government's concern that the arrangements for supervising the interior design of the new ship shall be such as to ensure that the result will be of the highest possible standard. With this object in view, my right hon. Friend will keep in the closest touch with the company and the Council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Cunard Company is receiving something over £17 million of public money and that many of the decisions being taken on the interior design are being made by a person with no obvious qualifications other than that she happens to be the wife of the Chairman of the Cunard Company? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Will my hon. Friend make sure that when such large sums of public money are spent proper value is received?

The Cunard Company knows the importance which I attach to the standard of industrial design in a ship of this kind and of its taking advantage of the wide range of fittings and equipment of modern design now produced in Britain.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for nearly a hundred years the Cunard Company has launched ships ahead of any other shipbuilders in the world, and there is no doubt about it that when the new Queen is launched she will be the most modern, up-to-date and best finished ship in the world?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. As I have informed the House already, a number of meetings have been held with the Council of Industrial Design, and I hope that these will continue quite amicably.

Are not these mean personal attacks against people who cannot hit back in very bad taste, and do they not lower the dignity of the House, and of the so-called hon. Member?

It cannot be for a junior Minister at the Board of Trade to answer that, which must be a matter of opinion.

When the Government provide credit to the extent of £17 million to a shipping company, are we not entitled to exercise some measure of control?

Yes, but I ought to advise the House that under the terms of the loan to Cunard we have no power to insist on any particular interior design or on the employment of any particular designer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has come to as a result of his discussions on whether changes are desirable in the existing arrangements for training in the mechanics of export and on whether action is required by Her Majesty's Government to encourage people to make the fullest use of them; and if he will make a statement.

The consultations mentioned in my answer of the 18th February are continuing, but I am not able to add to that reply at this stage.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of keeping facilities for this sort of training under continuous review in relation, particularly, to demand, especially as, unfortunately, the mechanics of export are not becoming any simpler as time goes on?

My hon. Friend can be sure that we take a serious view of this, and that consultations are covering a very comprehensive review of existing facilities, and what further steps may be necessary.

Will the Minister of State tell the House what are the mechanics of export?

Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many British companies which have gone into partnership with overseas territories in forming new companies for the servicing of British exports, and that they are hard hit in this way by his right hon. Friend's Finance Bill?

I am not sure that I see the relevance of that supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper.

It depends on the meaning of "mechanics of export", which was not explained.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply has been made to the request by the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement on commercial relations concluded in 1957 between the Community and the United Kingdom, they should be granted retroactively 30 days' delay in the imposition of the 15 per cent. surcharge.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now replied to the aide mémoire from the European Coal and Steel Community regarding the 15 per cent. Import surcharge; and what were the terms of his reply.

Our reply to the aide mémoire, which was handed to the High Authority's representative in London on 22nd April, explained that Her Majesty's Government had concluded with the utmost reluctance that they were unable to agree to the High Authority's request that imports from the European Coal and Steel Community should be retrospectively exempted from the British import surcharge for a period of 30 days.

Does not this whole miserable story prove once again how incompetently the surcharge was imposed; that it was clearly in breach of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, and that Her Majesty's Government, by their actions at that time and by their delay in answering the request of the Coal and Steel Community, have now once again shown how little they care for our relations with Europe and how much they have damaged them?

That is not a conclusion in which I would concur. In any case, the High Authority has been well assured of our desire to maintain close links with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Does not the Minister think that in this case some form of compensatory action by Her Majesty's Government is called for, particularly in view of the incredible time it has taken the Government to answer this request? Was not this, even for this Government, a record in international discourtesy?

Members of the High Authority did not themselves complain of the delay. They accepted the view that it was sensible to await the discussion which took place at a meeting of the High Authority on 5th March before the Government finally gave their answer.

Will the hon. Gentleman press upon his right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government the necessity, in the interests of good relations with our trade partners abroad, of abandoning altogether, at the earliest possible moment, the surcharge, which has done untold harm?

Without concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is already aware that the Government are committed to reducing, and abandoning, the surcharge just as soon as the balance of payments position permits.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his technical and legal representatives were present at the adjourned hearing of the inquiry into the "Lakonia" disaster in Athens on 8th March; and whether their report is yet available.

Yes, Sir. Legal and technical experts represented Her Majesty's Government in March as on earlier occasions, and have reported to the Board of Trade on the progress of the inquiry.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give the House any indication when he expects the report of the inquiry will be made known to this country, in view of the fact that a large number of British passengers were on board this vessel and that the accident took place getting on for a year and a half ago?

Some time in the summer.

Arising out of this affair, has not my hon. Friend reached the conclusion that passenger ships engaged on cruises, and picking up British passengers at British ports, should be carefully examined to ascertain whether they are seaworthy?

No doubt a lot of this will be examined during the course of the inquiry.

Does that mean that this report will be published? If not, what other action will the Minister take?

The Board of Trade—and, in particular, myself—is not free to comment on the progress of the inquiries so far, as under Greek law all these inquiries are private, not public. So we have to await publication of the report before I can make any further comment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up an inquiry into the prices of toilet requisites, including toothpaste, toilet soaps, shaving soaps, and lavatory cleaners.

No, Sir. Where there are price increases that appear to the Government to justify investigation these will be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the price of some of these things has gone up by as much as 20 per cent. in the last couple of months?

Yes, Sir. We have had discussions with the Toilet Preparations Federation and the Society of British Soap Makers about their recent price increases, and we are satisfied that the traders concerned are aware of the need to absorb their cost increases in their prices as far as possible.

Does that reply include a reference to the grossly excessive price increases in soap powders?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that publication of a detailed breakdown of trade statistics on a quarterly in place of a monthly basis will be adequate to enable action to be taken against sharp and unforeseen increases in specific classes of imported goods; and if he will make a statement.

Statistics of our trade continue to be published monthly, in the same detail as hitherto, in the Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to keep down the price of books and technical periodicals.

The White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy sets out the considerations which should guide all concerned with prices. I see no reason at present for any special action with regard to books and technical periodicals, but the Board of Trade is in touch with the trade associations concerned in order to obtain further information about prices.

Does not the Minister consider that the fact that a number of regular Government publications have increased in price by 50 per cent. and that the postage for sending them has gone up by 33⅓ per cent. is a rather bad example for a prices policy?

These are matters that can be considered also.

Will the Minister look at the increase in prices recently made by the Stationery Office, and ask it to set an example?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he refused an industrial development certificate to a prospective manufacturer for a factory at Crediton, Devon;

The first consideration must be to get available industry to the development districts where the need for more employment is greatest, and it was in the light of this that an industrial development certificate was recently refused at Crediton. Subject to this priority, I am prepared to approve suitable projects by firms with ties to the Crediton area.

Why did not the Minister give that Answer earlier in a Written Answer when he refused to give the information? Frankly, all we are asking for is permission to start a small factory without any Government aid or help. I ask the Minister to think again, as local people are seriously disturbed by this refusal, bearing in mind the recent Report on the South-West which showed that industry was not only leaving, but being encouraged to leave.

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is " Yes, Sir," and the answer to the second part is that discussions are still going on with the company concerned about the location of its project.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy being pursued by the Government is widely welcomed on this side of the House, and that the greatest need is obviously to get factories and industries into the development districts, such as Merseyside, which really need them?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the study carried out by the British National Export Council and the Board of Trade on the feasibility of establishing a marketing organisation for the purpose of promoting the exports of companies which either do not at present export at all or which export only to a limited extent.

The market research necessary before decisions can be taken is currently being carried out on the West Coast of the United States of America, in British Columbia and in West Germany.

Can the Minister explain exactly what these tests of feasibility are? Is not the only real way of testing this idea to try it out in a specific market?

We are engaging eminent consultants in this field as we feel it necessary, for the B.N.E.C. to reach sound conclusions as to a scheme of this character, to do preliminary market research.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that those who have been exporting for many years know that the key to exports is prices and that unless prices come down we cannot increase our exports? How can we get prices down when wages keep going up for the same work?

We are talking about this feasibility study.

With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am the last to challenge your Ruling in this House, but I thought that question perfectly in order.

I fear that to my regret our views differ, but I will look at it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he now has as to the extent to which the 15 per cent. surcharge has reduced imports in the categories affected.

The import figures for the first quarter of 1965 provide evidence that the temporary import charge has had sortie effect in reducing imports.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the import figures of manufactured goods for the first quarter of 1965 show a 16 per cent. increase over the corresponding period of 1964?

The hon. Gentleman's conclusions and deductions from printed statistics do not concur with mine.

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree that the reduction of imports in March was greater in goods which were not subject to the surcharge?

That is true, but nevertheless manufactured goods have shown a reduction in the import figures.

Will my hon. Friend take into consideration when any future announcement of a reduction of surcharge is likely to be made that advanced warnings will have a tendency to suppress the enthusiasm of importers to go into business?

I can only say that all relevant considerations will be taken into consideration.

In view of the fact that when this import surcharge was introduced it was thought that there would be a saving of £200 million in imports in one year, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the record to date gives any indication that that will be achieved?

The hon. Member will appreciate that the effects of the charge cannot be separated from other influences affecting imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that the use of gin traps is prohibited in this country, if he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the manufacture for export, for use overseas, of these articles.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the reply denotes an extraordinary cynicism of attitude in that the manufacture of these instruments of torture has been prohibited in this country for many years because of their extreme cruelty? Will he agree that it is improper for us to export that which is prohibited in this country?

The Board of Trade has no general powers to prohibit the manufacture of goods either for sale on the home market or for export. It has power, however, to prohibit the export of goods under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, but as a general rule we do not require goods exported from this country to conform with our own regulations, for example, on health and safety. Conditions abroad are dissimilar to those in this country and it is normally inappropriate for us to seek to legislate for other countries.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many officers of his Department regularly visit firms; and what work they do.

Some 260 officers regularly visit firms to assist them on exports, export credits and industrial location. A similar number visit firms in the enforcement of legislation for which the Board of Trade is responsible; and a further 500 visit ships, docks and warehouses on matters concerning the safety and welfare of vessels and ships' crews.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of finding out what is happening in industry is to visit firms themselves and that consultations at the Board of Trade are not an adequate alternative? Will he agree that as the work in his Department increases he should make sure that his officers spend more of their time seeing what is happening on the spot and making the required recommendations?

I think that the service we have at the Board of Trade from these regular visits is very satisfactory. If any further improvements in this service are needed we shall certainly make arrangements for the improvements to take place.

In view of the excellent work carried out by these men and the hard day's work they put in, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are still given a good lunch by the firms they visit?

Will the Minister see that those officers who go to firms and talk about exports are closely linked with our trade attachés in foreign countries so that where they see a need for certain goods this vets circulated back?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will institute an official investigation of the present situation in the cotton textile industry, with a view to ascertaining what extra assistance might be given by the Government to this industry.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 10th December last.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that, although the level of activity at the moment in the cotton textile industry is quite high, there is growing apprehension at the prospect of further cotton goods imports arising later this year? Are there any steps which his Department have in mind to control the situation?

Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade is in consultation with the Cotton Board and other interests concerned in this matter.

When the 10 per cent. surcharge is reduced will it affect the cotton trade?

In view of the fact that the Answer which was given to me previously did not tell me very much, could my hon. Friend perhaps look into this matter again?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations were made to him by the delegates at the International European Free Trade Association Action Committee in mid-March about the surcharge and the export rebate; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

I am much obliged for that reply, but could the hon. Gentleman say whether there is in Europe a great stockpiling of exports waiting to come to this country when the surcharge is reduced? Would it not be better to no away with the whole of the surcharge straight away and let trade flow freely?

It has been repeatedly made clear that the Government intend to reduce and abandon the surcharge just as soon as the balance of trade position improves.

Will the Minister of State bear in mind that certain exporting firms are having to decrease the price of their exports by their export rebate so as to get business? This is because of the effect of the surcharge. Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind particularly as an extra reason for reducing the surcharge immediately?

We have some evidence of isolated cases of that kind, but they must not be exaggerated in their total effect.

In the meantime, would my hon. Friend draw to the attention of at least one member of E.F.T.A. the fact that over a long period it has had an extremely favourable balance of trade with us and that one of the quickest ways of getting rid of the necessity for the surcharge would be to rectify that imbalance?

We lose no opportunities of drawing the attention of relevant countries to such factors.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the working of the Local Employment Act, in relation to migration of population in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Local Employment Acts are designed to promote employment in places of high and persistent unemployment, not to deal with problems of migration. Nevertheless, the provision of employment in these places helps to lessen outward migration.

Would not the Minister of State agree that areas such as the North-East, the east of Scotland, and the Border suffer tremendously from migration and find it very difficult to maintain existing industry, let alone attract new industry? Would he not consider, in implementing certain promises made during the election, including migration as a criterion for designation as a development district?

That is a proposition which is well worth considering, and we will consider it.

Is it not a fact that one of the great defects of the Local Employment Acts was precisely that depopulation was not accepted as a criterion by the then Government, although we on this side tabled Amendments designed to secure this?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister of State also agree with the point made the other day by Mr. George Chetwynd that one consequence of the changes in company taxation will be that investment in development districts is less attractive than it has been hitherto?

There are differences of opinion a bout this and I understand that the matter will be discussed in the House before long.

Does the Minister of State realise that these Acts are not really effective for the purpose for which they were designed? In particular, they are not stopping the drift south of craftsmen from the north-east of Scotland. Will he have a look at it from this point of view, with a view to stopping that drift south?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister of State aware that one of the problems in areas which may suffer from depopulation is that they are unable to attract new and vital labour because of shortage of housing induced by the Government's monetary policy? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to help in this matter?

Neither the hon. Member nor anyone else has any evidence to support that allegation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to encourage home production of pig meat, he will place an embargo on the importation of bacon from Poland and other Communist countries.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister of State aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst British producers of pig meat and bacon at the amount of imports from other countries, particularly from Communist countries? Is he aware that this is considerably discouraging home production?

It was only last year that a sharing understanding was reached, in which Poland and Hungary were partners, and this is, in our view, of considerable value in bringing stability to the bacon market. If we deprived Poland and others of their share, there would be no guarantee that the gap would be filled by home supplies. Other imports—for example, from Denmark—would be more likely to gain.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many Members on this side who would deeply resent any attempt to undermine the basis of our expanding trade with Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe? Further, would my hon. Friend kindly explain to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) something about the principles of free trade, to which I understand the Liberal Party is wedded?

We are quite convinced that to put an embargo on bacon, as is suggested in the Question, would be contrary not only to the understanding but to our long-term policy of improving trade relations with Poland.

Is our balance of trade with Poland and these other Communist countries mentioned favourable or unfavourable?

At the moment it is unfavourable. Appropriate representations have been made to the Polish authorities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the imminent closure of Bow-hill Colliery in central West Fife, involving about 1,100 men in loss of employment, he will initiate, as a matter of urgency, the building of an advance factory there.

Advance factories already built, under construction or planned by local authorities and the Board of Trade will make available 350,000 sq. ft. of factory space within a 15–mile radius of Bowhill. The needs of the locality will be fully taken into account in considering any future programme of Government advance factories.

How many jobs does that figure represent? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Coal Board itself has stated that it can re-employ not more than about 320 of these 1,100 men and that, if alternative employment is not found for them, the middle-aged men will get no work at all and the young men will probably move out of the country altogether? Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a future advance factory programme in the ensuing years?

We are aware of the difficulty which will arise when and if the closing of the colliery takes place. I understand that the negotiations now going on between the Coal Board and the union will mean that most of the men will be offered alternative employment by the Board; but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we will be left with the problem of finding employment for the older men. I cannot tell him how many jobs are likely to arise from the expansion in factories that is now going on or is projected——

Are there any tenants?

—but there has been considerable success in attracting new industry to Fife and we are hoping that this will continue. In any case, we are keeping the matter under review. On the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the programme of advance factories announced in November is now going on and we do not expect to announce another one for a little while.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturers have made applications to the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements for the exemption of their products from the provisions of the Resale Prices Act; and for how many categories of products such exemption has been claimed.

I understand from the Registrar that he received some 700 applications from various firms and trade associations and that these relate to over 400 classes of goods.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that under existing procedures the hearing of such a large amount of exemption claims may well take several years? Would he not further agree that there is some evidence here of a conspiracy, by some manufacturers at least, to defeat the purposes of the Act? Will he consider methods by which the hearing of claims can be expedited?

I do not know about evidence of conspiracy, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Registrar is able to group goods for the purpose of references to the Court. In fact, in the 12 references already made about 300 different classes of goods are involved and, if experience under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is any guide, of every four or five references only one goes to a full hearing.

Has priority been given to those firms which specifically requested that their applications for hearing should be dealt with first in order that the matter should be clarified for their own industry?

No. The priority of references was left to the Registrar. The Board of Trade did not give any directions.

The President of the Board of Trade gave me an assurance a few months ago that he would look into this matter to ensure that priority was given to firms which requested it. Will the Minister reconsider this matter immediately?

No, because after the consideration that was given to the matter by my right hon. Friend it was concluded—I, and I am sure most people who are involved in this, think rightly—that it should be left to the Registrar to decide, and he has decided the order of references.

Would not the Minister of State agree that the reduction in prices—particularly the reduction in the price of whisky—following the Resale Prices Act has been largely offset by the penal taxation of this Government and that the benefits of the Resale Prices Act——

No such whisky arises out of the Answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans to stimulate office development on Merseyside and to endeavour to move both private enterprise and Government offices from London to Merseyside.

In administering the proposed control of office development, the Board of Trade will certainly take account of the employment needs of development districts such as Merseyside.

Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to industry that even though their tactical headquarters must be in London it is often more economic and efficient to have their base headquarters in the provinces, including Merseyside?

Yes, Sir, and this was made perfectly clear in Committee on the Bill. The point was raised repeatedly.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that for a long period of time there have been movements of office activity away from Liverpool and that this is a source of great anxiety? Will he take account also of the fact that the latest instance of the choice of Manchester over Liverpool for office development has been offered by the Claims Branch of British Railways? Having regard to the interest of his right hon. Friend's Department in the distribution of enterprise, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the anxiety to which that kind of thing gives rise?

There are difficulties involved here, because until the comprehensive studies now being made into the location of office employment and how it might be guided have been completed we cannot take all the action that I am sure hon. Members who represent development districts would like us to take. I will draw my hon. and learned Friend's second point to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend make it decisively clear that the trend which was taking place under the previous Government will be reversed and that we will get more offices into Merseyside?

That is why we introduced the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation to deal with merchandise marks.

I cannot at present add to the Reply I gave to the hon. Member on 25th February.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on that occasion he told me that this would be urgently attended to? Is he aware that shoddy goods of all sorts are on sale in our shops and that, particularly with footwear, customers have no way of discovering what materials go into their manufacture?

I am aware of these problems. They have been drawn to our attention frequently and new legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable.

When can we expect some of the dynamic legal reform which was promised before the election?

If the hon. and learned Member will look at the legislative programme of this Government he will see that it is all there.

In considering this matter, will my hon. Friend go into the question of verbal misrepresentation and also into the problems posed by television advertising and ensure that there is a proper method of prosecution embodied in any Act which will be forthcoming?

Yes, Sir. The question of oral misrepresentation is covered and it will be an offence under the terms of the legislation. Enforcement will be done by the local authorities. I think that that covers the other point which my hon. Friend raised.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, what is the present rate of duty upon phthalic anhydride entering this country; what is the domestic quantity price in the United Kingdom as compared with the domestic quantity price in Germany; and what percentage of the total demand in the United Kingdom is being met by domestic producers.

The full rate of duty is 33⅓ per cent. and I estimate that about 90 per cent. of demand is being met by domestic producers: I have no reliable information about prices fixed in private transactions either here or in Germany.

Is it not a fact that the price in this country is materially higher than that prevailing on the Continent? As many manufacturers have been taking 10 per cent. of the home-produced goods at a considerable disadvantage, will the hon. Gentleman consider waiving the duty for a temporary period?

Application has been made for a permanent reduction in the duty. The applicants have been told that we think it best to await the outcome of very difficult negotiations in the chemical field on the Kennedy Round.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any body other than Her Majesty's courts to impose fines on anyone under any circumstances.

No, Sir.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his terse if unilluminating reply, which suggests that he has been to Moscow rather than to Rome, may I ask if the House is to assume from the reply that trade unions are to have power to impose fines on their members? If so, how is this to be reconciled with an incomes policy and with the statement which the Prime Minister has made on television?

There have been, and there are, a number of professional bodies which have powers—one thinks of doctors, lawyers and others—to impose all kinds of penalties on their members when their members are in default of the rules agreed by the association in question. I remember in this House some very bitter exchanges about the activity of certain trade associations, in fining tyre retailers, defended by right hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Member is con-concerned, as I think he may be, with particular restrictive practices which may be enforced by fines, I think that he will find support in all parts of the House for our efforts to deal with these restrictive practices and to try to get rid of them by agreement wherever that is possible.

asked the Prime Minister to what extent his proposals discussed in Bonn with the Federal German Government for the creation of an Atlantic Nuclear Force are designed to give that Government an indirect say in nuclear policy.

asked the Prime Minister if, following his visits to Bonn and the United States of America, he will have further discussions with the Government of the German Federal Republic on proposals to give the Federal Republic a share in the control and operation of nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.

With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 9 together.

If by "an indirect say in nuclear policy"—the words in the Question—the hon. and gallant Member means any right direct or indirect to initiate nuclear action, the answer, as I explained at length in the foreign affairs debate on the 16th of December last, is that under our proposals no existing non-nuclear power would obtain that right. On the contrary our proposals contain built-in guarantees against dissemination and acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Is not the Prime Minister running a serious risk of being accused of speaking with two voices? How does he reconcile his statement rather more than two years ago that he was utterly opposed in all circumstances to Germany having any say in allied nuclear policy with his promise in December that these A.N.F. proposals were to give Germany a direct part to play in the mounting and management of nuclear weapon systems? Surely those two statements are quite irreconcilable.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the phrase I used in the debate on 31st January, 1963, was "No German finger on the trigger directly or indirectly in any circumstances." That is the position which will he safeguarded under the Atlantic Nuclear Force proposals and would apply equally to other non-nuclear members of the alliance.

Can the Prime Minister say how his proposal differs in any way from the position in the N.A.T.O. alliance now?

Yes, Sir, simply because, as the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to point out when he was at this Dispatch Box, Germany is prevented under treaty obligations from making nuclear weapons. There was nothing in these treaties to prevent Germany from acquiring or receiving nuclear weapons, having them supplied or entering into some agreement with the French. Under our proposals it would be a safeguard that Germany could not receive, nor could anyone supply to Germany or to any other non-nuclear Power.

Is the Prime Minister saying that his proposal about the A.N.F. does not give Federal Germany any right or say in the control and operational planning of nuclear weapons? Does he seriously say that?

I dealt with this at great length on 16th December and I ask the hon. Member to study the words which I used. I said that in so far as it is in any sense, to use the rather loose phrase, "a finger on the trigger", there is certainly no proposal to give anyone extra power so far as the movement of the trigger is concerned. In other words, Germany and other non-nuclear Powers would have no power to initiate nuclear action. As regards the agreement on targeting and nuclear policy—[Interruption.]—if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) does not understand the difference between having a finger on the trigger to cause a gun to be fired and the right to be consulted about targeting and nuclear policy in general he had better go back and study this all over again.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, under the present N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements, Germany has full right to be consulted about targeting and to bring anything before the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee. In his proposals about this force, is there anything that differs in any respect from the N.A.T.O. alliance arrangements in that connection?

Yes, indeed there is. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the matter was very fully deployed on 16th December. If he was satisfied about the participation of Germany and other non-nuclear Powers in preparations and the targeting situation, I am not quite clear why his Government made proposals to increase those powers.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what the next step will be over these proposals? Who has agreed to them, and what were the follow-ups?

As I think the whole House well understands, the position is that not much progress is likely to be made with the M.L.F., the A.N.F., or anything else this side of the German elections. It would be quite unrealistic for anyone to suppose that that would happen. We realised that all along. But there is in progress the working group in Paris examining the technical proposals and examining what is the new factor in the situation, our A.N.F. proposals as compared with the M.L.F. proposals on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite, over two years, could not agree even in their own Cabinet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view has been expressed by the German Government and in the West German Press that the line between the negative control which he envisages and positive participation is a thin one which will be eroded very quickly?

This, of course, was the position as regards the M.L.F. proposal which we found holding the field when we came in, but I think the big difference between that and these proposals is the very clear provision, through safeguards and guarantees which were spelt out to the House, about non-acquisition and non-dissemination of nuclear weapons.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Foreign Secretary made during an authorised interview with a United States news agency, and published on 20th March, on the subject of relations with the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

As the Foreign Secretary's statement on this occasion was a very forthcoming one in terms of joining up with Europe, does this mean that the Prime Minister is now prepared to discuss with the European Economic Community his five conditions about entry?

I should have thought that the position here was quite clear. There is no question whatever of Britain either seeking or being asked to seek entry into the Common Market in the immediately foreseeable future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition described it at the election as a "dead duck", and this particular question is not a reality. As regards the members of the Six, there is no evidence that they have changed their attitude at all to British entry. So far as this Government are concerned, the conditions we laid down still apply. This does not mean that we cannot do something to build a bridge between the E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., and we have taken initiatives to discuss this at Ministerial level in the E.F.T.A. to see whether the E.F.T.A. can agree on an approach to the Common Market from the E.F.T.A.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman just said, the five conditions remain, this would, in fact, make it impossible for this country to join the E.E.C. at any time, would it not?

The point here—let us be absolutely clear about it—is that the terms on which the last Government tried to crawl their way in were quite unacceptable to the Commonwealth. While there may not be many difficulties about the Treaty of Rome—one or two obvious points will have to be dealt with—so long as there is the agricultural policy, about which we repeatedly warned the then Government, which would mean a levy of 75 to 80 per cent. on every ton of Australian or Canadian wheat coming into this country, an increase in our import bill of hundreds of millions, and an increase in our industrial costs, then to join on those terms would mean complete disruption of our trade with the Commonwealth, which I hope that no one in the House would be prepared to contemplate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that building bridges is no substitute for joining the Common Market?

If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that the policy of the party opposite is to join the Common Market on conditions which would destroy Commonwealth trade, as I have just said—if that is what we are to read into his speech last night—and a European nuclear deterrent, it is about time the Leader of the Opposition made the position of the party opposite clear to the nation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear answer. Will he convey this clear answer to his noble Friend in another place?

The statement of my noble Friend in another place, of which I nave read every word, was completely consistent and in complete agreement with what I have said. What we have made clear—I have said it again in Rome privately, and publicly this morning—is that, while there is no question whatever, as I hope the whole House agrees, of immediately joining the Common Market, and while we should require very different conditions before we could contemplate joining the Common Market, if we can get any easement of tariffs between the two blocs which divide Europe today, it is our duty to do so. That is the purpose of the initiative which we are taking in the E.F.T.A. I hope that we cal get agreement there, and I hope that it will then have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) believes that the Prime Minister has made his position absolutely clear in regard to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the initiative is which, so he announced last week, he is poised to take? What consultations and preparations have been made before taking such an important initiative, and what indications has he had from the European Economic Community of its response to it?

The right hon. Gentleman is a little premature; my invitation was to the Leader of the Opposition to state the Opposition's position. As regards the details of his question, I should have thought that, with his long experience in the matter, he would expect us to discuss these questions with our colleagues in the E.F.T.A., then, having done so, to make what statement is appropriate—I hope that one will be made to the House immediately afterwards—and then to have discussions with the members of the Six. In answer to previous supplementary questions, I have given some idea of the kind of initiative which could be taken. There are some four or five issues—the right hon. Gentleman will know what they are—which we could pursue with our E.F.T.A. colleagues and see how far there can be E.F.T.A. agreement on them.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he recently had in the United States of America.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to similar Questions on 27th April.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in spite of the considerable opposition from the benches behind him, it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to lean very strongly upon the Anglo-American alliance? Second, did he discuss with President Johnson the Atlantic Nuclear Force, and, if so, with what result?

Support of the Atlantic Alliance has always been the policy of this party, and we have had very fruitful discussions on this question. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about questions of major disagreement when their own Front Bench is now divided even on the question of European—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have still to hear from the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the proposal for a European nuclear force put forward yesterday by his right hon. Friend. The question of the A.N.F. was very fully discussed with President Johnson in December. It was then agreed that the matter should be further discussed in Paris, and that is what we are going on with now.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to British citizens visiting Spain on holiday or otherwise;

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the communication he has now received from the Head of State in Spain about the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the policy of the Spanish Government concerning the problem of Gibraltar; and whether he will make a statement.

With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q8, Q9, Q10 and Q11 together.

I have neither received from nor sent to the Spanish Head of State any communication about the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians, on which Spanish policy appears as yet unchanged.

As for the policy of Her Majesty's Government about visits to Spain by British citizens, I would refer the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) to the Answers I gave on 6th April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), and on 13th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison).

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of a surcharge in order to help the people of Gibraltar? In view of his known love of retrospective legislation, would he agree to apply such a surcharge to the 40 or more hon. Members opposite who have been the guests of the Spanish Government, with their expenses paid in full?

If such a surcharge were to be as retrospective as that it would have to apply also to a large number of right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. But I do not consider that a surcharge is the appropriate way of helping the people of Gibraltar. We stand firmly behind them and a surcharge, retrospective or otherwise, is not the way to help them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only crime that the Gibraltarians have committed in the eyes of the Spanish Government is that they want to remain British and that all their genuine attempts at co-operation have been met with provocation, vindictiveness and even persecution? May we have my right hon. Friend's assurance that, while the Spanish Government persist in their attitude, there will be no sale of arms to them?

I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. He has put the situation very fairly. It is right to say—and here I hope to have the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite—that the particular issue which the Spanish Government regard as the cause of this persecution was the late Government's decision, which we fully supported and always will support, to give a measure of qualified self-government to the people of Gibraltar. It was this which upset the Spanish Government and led to threats at the time and the action they have since taken.

I hope that we all stand by the rightness of that decision to give a measure of self-government to the people of Gibraltar. They were entitled to it and we were right to give it.

In considering Anglo-Spanish relations, will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, under which the territory of Gibraltar was ceded to this country's sovereignty for ever, are now obsolete and quite impossible of complete and literal fufilment? Will he, therefore, take an early opportunity to have conversation with the Spanish Government with a view to more modern conditions for a treaty being brought about under which it will be made clear that the administration of Gibraltar is British and remains absolutely subordinate to this country?