asked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of his inspectors on the Livestock Marketing Company Limited, inquiries for which were started in 1962, is to be published.

I cannot yet say when it will be possible to publish the report of the inspectors.

In view of the concern about this matter and the fact that it has been such a long time, will the hon. Gentleman say why the report cannot be published, or when it is to be published?

I share the hon. Lady's disquiet about this case. The Board of Trade inspectors produced their report in October 1963. It was then sent to the police, which, of course, precluded publication, and the papers are now being considered by counsel. We are doing our best to speed up the proceedings.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of industrial stocks at the last available date; what was the level 12 and 24 months previously, respectively; and what is the percentage change over this period.

The book value of manufacturers' stocks at the end of September 1965 was £7,204 million; it was £6,686 million at the end of September 1964, and £6,126 million at the end of September 1963. These figures represent increases of 9 per cent. between September 1963 and 1964 and 8 per cent. between September 1964 and 1965.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been received by his Department on the effects on industry and commerce of the Corporation Tax.

Formal representations on matters of taxation are made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but views on various aspects of the Corporation Tax have been put to my Department by representatives of industry and commerce.

I accept that this is obviously a matter primarily for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but does not the hon. Gentleman realise that a great responsibility is placed upon the President of the Board of Trade and that people in industry ought to know by now at least what the rate will be which they will be charged?

The President of the Board of Trade can hardly announce the Chancellor's rate of Corporation Tax before the Budget.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures of 35 and 40 per cent. are being bandied about and, further, that this difference of 5 per cent. means additional taxation to industry of £150 million a year?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct, but, in any case, the question ought to be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that companies are not misled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite as to the effects of the Corporation Tax, and will he ensure that industry and commerce are made aware that, in so far as they plough back their profits, they will be better off under the new system than under the old?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in the Kennedy Round tarff negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of developments since my right hon. Friend made his statement on Thursday, 29th July, 1965.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deadline for completion of the negotiations is July of this year? If that is so, are the Government taking any steps to approach the American Government to extend the date?

What we are doing at present is trying to restore the momentum in the negotiations so that the bargaining over the final round can be settled, if possible, this summer. It is necessary that the negotiations should be completed very early in 1967 because that is when the United States' statutory powers concerning the Kennedy Round come to an end.

Now that the problems appear to be solved in the E.E.C., it is not clear that this advance can be taken, and will not all our E.F.T.A. partners be looking to us to force the pace in the negotiations? It is up to the Government to do this.

When the hon. Gentleman sees the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that we are doing precisely that. Following is the statement:

Progress in the Kennedy Round negotiations in the second half of 1965 was affected by the difficulties experienced by the European Economic Community, which prevented the Community from extending its negotiating mandate and, in particular, from joining in submitting an offer of concessions on agricultural products other than cereals.

Discussions have continued between delegations, bilaterally and in wider groups, on the scope for limiting the exceptions to the proposed linear reductions in tariffs and on problems in certain industrial sectors such as chemicals, steel and textiles. The examination of non-tariff barriers to trade is also continuing.

The British Government joined in September, 1965, with most other participants in the agricultural negotiations in submitting offers of concessions on agricultural products other than cereals.

Forty-three other governments, including governments of agricultural exporting countries and developing countries, have now contributed offers to the negotiations. A special group on tropical products has been examining the scope for action in this field in the interests of the developing countries.

In an effort to restore the momentum of the Kennedy Round, the Director-General of the G.A.T.T. circulated to participating Governments last month a report which identified the numerous points on which decisions will need to be taken by Governments in order to ensure early progress. The British Government are considering the possibilities for taking action as quickly as possible on the recommendations in this report.

As a country dependent on experts, Britain's interest lies in maintaining the growth of world trade, and in securing reciprocal reductions of trade barriers. The Government consider it particularly important to reduce tariffs reciprocally in Europe, so as to mitigate the discrimination arising from the separate existence of the E.E.C. and E. F.T.A. They will, therefore, continue to do all they can to ensure progress during the spring so that negotiations can pass through their decisive stages during the summer and autumn. They believe that, if all participants show a similar determination, is should be possible to complete the negotiations early in 1967.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the firms and industries which have been considered for further public ownership or control in the last six months.

None, Sir.

Will not the powers which the Government hope to take in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation enable them virtually to nationalise the steel industry, or will they continue with their Bill, as pledged at the General Election?

As pointed out in the debate on the White Paper, the I.R.C. will not be used for the purposes the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the steel industry, I can only say " Wait and see ". Meanwhile, if the hon. Gentleman has any firms in mind which he thinks would operate better under public ownership, we should be glad to look at his suggestions.

How does the hon. Gentleman square his original Answer with the express statement by the Minister of Technology in the House of Commons when he said that he had come across a number of sections of industry

Order. It is not in order to quote at Question Time

The Minister said that he had come across a number of sections of industry which he would like to bring into public ownership—and he was speaking on behalf of the Government.

This Question was directed to the Board of Trade.

In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten), would my hon. Friend perhaps look into the drug industry as possibly the first candidate?

That question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to strengthen and expand the work of the Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.

The Council decides for itself what work it will do, within the limits of its grant-in-aid and terms of reference. My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider any proposals it may put to him for extending its work.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Consumer Council is doing a grand job to protect the consumer? Will he consult the Council to see whether its resources are sufficient to make generally known to the public what it has done to protect the consumer?

We are in constant consultation with the Consumer Council and listen, of course, to all the representations it makes. I agree that the Council, now that it is well established, is doing a very good job.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to alleviate the extra cost of main water, due to the provisions of the Finance Act, 1965, which is harming producers of goods and produce for export.

My right hon. Friend has no powers in this matter.

Will the Minister of State realise that his Answer will be very disappointing to many farmers and small manufacturers in Suffolk and the rest of the country, because the costs of water—a necessary ingredient—are up by 25 per cent., due entirely to the Finance Act?

I am not sure who is responsible for the question put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would think that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Scottish interests regarding the provision of alternative industries in areas affected by coal closures.

In addition to the discussions on this subject which my right hon. Friend held with the Board of Trade Principal Controller for Scotland and representatives of other Departments during his visit to Scotland on the 4th January, I have had discussions with Scottish industrialists, the Scottish T.U.C., Members of Parliament and representatives of the local Authorities of Fife and Lanarkshire county councils about alternative work for miners affected by pit closures.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is need for special and urgent action here, since Scotland has been singled out for savage treatment through coal mine closures, with only 28 of the 76 pits having a guaranteed future? Has he no definite news for the Scottish miners and clergy representatives who are here to complain about the virtual annihilation of the Scottish coalfields?

I do not think that any of the representatives I spoke to in Scotland would share the hon. Gentleman's views. But, in any case, we intend to carry on with the good work started by the Government. During 1965, as compared with 1964, the rate of unemployment was considerably brought down; we gave approvals for I.D.C.s amounting to 11 million sq.ft. of factory building as compared with 6 million sq.ft. in 1964; we have had a round of advance factories and additional areas of Scotland, including the coal mining districts of Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, have been added to the list of development districts. The new proposals of the White Paper on Investment Incentives will help—

Order. This is getting too long.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh would be well placed to provide additional employment for displaced miners from the Lowlands and the Fife coalfields but for its cruel and unjust exclusion from the scheme for investment incentives?

There is another Question on that subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide for exemption from the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, of agreements between manufacturers which have as their object the rationalisation of industry with a view to increasing the efficiency of production or the saving of imports.

No, Sir. There is no a priori reason why rationalisation proposals designed to improve the competitive efficiency of industry need involve restrictive agreements.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that even discussions towards these ends can be registerable agreements within the meaning of the Act? Does not this pose an appalling dilemma for industries which genuinely desire to comply with the law when they are encouraged by the National Plan to embark on these negotiations? The hon. Gentleman cannot shuffle off the problem by an Answer of that kind.

When I saw the Question on the Order Paper I thought that the hon. Gentleman was changing the views which he expressed during the passage of the Monopolies and Mergers Act. The industrial economic development councils are discussing this question, among many others, and when representations are made we shall look at them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make available in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the memorandum submitted to him by a minority of the Patents Liaison Group, dealing with the changes in the Patents Act, 1949, which would be involved in the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Strasbourg Convention of 1963.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now publish as a White Paper or in some other form equally convenient to the public the memorandum of the three members of the Patents Liaison Group setting out their reasons for refusing to sign the report of that group on the effects of 1963 Strasbourg Convention on United Kingdom Patent Law, Command Paper No. 2835, together with the comments thereon of the chairman of the group; and why that memorandum by a minority was not published by him in the White Paper with the report.

As was explained in the Foreword to Command Paper 2835, my right hon. Friend decided not to publish this memorandum with the Report of the Patents Liaison Group since it appeared to deal with matters outside the scope of the original request to the Group and to be concerned in the main with proposals for future action by the Government. He felt that it would be more appropriate for him to consider the memorandum together with other comments arising in connection with the Report. He is, however, very willing to respond to the requests made to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford that the memorandum should now be published, and has arranged for this to be done in the Board of Trade Journal for 25th February. He will at the same time publish the comments on it which the Chairman of the Group made at the time of its submission. Copies of both documents have today been placed in the Library.

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that happy, if belated, conclusion?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the loss in revenue to the United Kingdom in a full year by Her Majesty's Government's decision preventing Lloyd's underwriters meeting their liabilities in Rhodesia.

I understand that there has been a loss of business. I cannot estimate what the loss to the United Kingdom might be if it were necessary to maintain the present restrictions for a full year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very depressing Answer, particularly from a Department which is supposed to encourage exports? I am told that the loss amounts to £1½ million in premiums in Rhodesia, which is undermining the goodwill of Lloyd's Exchange. Is he aware that countries like South Africa intend to keep back part of their premiums as a guarantee against such action in future?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman exaggerates the figure. This is a unique situation. There is a rebellion in Rhodesia. The situation can only be resolved when constitutional government returns to Rhodesia.

Has the hon. Gentleman any figures of the extent of the default already or of the failure to renew premiums in South Africa because of what has happened in Rhodesia?

I have no figures available now, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will see whether they can be obtained.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that infinitely greater loss would result if the Government were to bend to rebellion?

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby)? This is a very serious matter and may have consequences outside the area we are concerned with.

As I indicated, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, West will put down a specific Question I will see if I can get the answer.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has given British exporters who have lost, or will lose, their market in Rhodesia.

I would advise them to sell in other export markets. All the services of the Department are at their disposal to help them to do this.

Is not that a rather flippant Answer? Having by their policy of sanctions at a time of grave economic trouble for Britain thrown away a preferential market of at least £30 million a year, have the Government no useful advice to offer whatever?

The hon. Gentleman is tending to exaggerate. We have received few, if any, requests for advice and have had brought to our notice very few cases of hardship to exporters resulting from the sanctions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would not be this difficult situation in Rhodesia if the régime there were not getting so much help from hon. Members opposite?

The best way to reduce any loss to British trade is to bring the rebellion to an end as quickly as possible, and this is what the Government's policy of sanctions is intended to do.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is in order for British exporters to keep in touch with their old customers in the hope of resuming trade after the rebellion is over, or whether this is against the advice of the Board of Trade?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir".

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the emphasis in the National Plan on the need to give priority to those sectors of industry which can make the greatest contribution to strengthening the balance of payments, what proposals he has for encouraging investment in the hotel and catering industry.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 31st January to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden).

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the President of the Board of Trade gave as the reason for the exclusion of the industry from the system of investment grants the fact that only 10 per cent. of its earnings are in foreign currency? Will he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the point that the hotel industry is the very heart of the tourist industry as a whole and that, if it does not modernise at the pace it should, the whole tourist industry will suffer?

I am not satisfied that the hotel industry will be severely hurt. It will have the initial allowance, increased from 10 to 30 per cent. Development districts are to be widened and, consequently, all those who wish to build or expand hotels in those regions, thereby providing assistance in dealing with the unemployment situation, will be able to get a 25 per cent. building grant. The whole industry is being indirectly assisted by the £2 million grant in aid that we give to the B.T.A.

Can the hon. Gentleman name a single industrial or commercial body in favour of the Government's new proposals? If so, which?

Most of them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the monopoly position at present obtaining in the British shoe distribution industry is consistent with the public interest; and whether he will refer this industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Although one firm has a large share in the retail distribution of footwear, it is not so large as to satisfy the conditions for reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this monopoly buying position works very hardly against the manufacturing end of the industry and that this organisation indulges in very heavy mark up and, on the whole, is deteriorating standards in the trade? Should not something be done about this?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that something should be investigated, and I think that an investigation on the lines he has suggested could take place, but not by the Monopolies Commission.

Is not this situation also working against the interests of the consumer, for the housewife gets the impression that a number of shops in the High Street are competing with each other when in fact they are owned and controlled by the same concern?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that solicitors, estate agents, building societies, and others, many of whom have no substantial interest to protect, place in leases, etc., clauses requiring insurances to be effected with companies from whom they draw commission, and that a departmental committee has already condemned this practice; and if he will take steps to end this restraint of trade.

I understand that this question will be examined by the Law Commission in the course of their deliberations on the reform of the law of landlord and tenant.

This, too, is putting off action. When are we to get tough about monopolies and make their lives uncomfortable? Unless we do, there will be no real vitality and dynamism in British industry.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Law Society and the Building Societies Association have already taken steps to discourage this insistance on clauses of this type, which are likely to lead to double insurance. If we can do the job by voluntary agreement, I do not see why we should bring into play a great sledge hammer to deal with it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action he is taking to eliminate non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the members of the European Free Trade Association;

(2) what action he is taking, in view of the elimination of tariffs between the members of the European Free Trade Association on 31st December, 1966, to move towards the harmonisation of agricultural price levels.

The E.F.T.A. Convention does not require the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade in the agricultural sector or the harmonisation of agricultural price levels, and we are not taking action for either purpose in E.F.T.A.

Is not that just the sort of initiative which the Government might well take in order to improve trade among the members of E.F.T.A. and also to set an example to the Six so that we may all go forward together?

As the tariffs on industrial goods are gradually eliminated, an examination will take place as to how E.F.T.A. can be strengthened, and no doubt this will be one of the talking points.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Council of Europe wishes to work along this line and that it is no encouragement to it when the hon. Gentleman makes that sort of answer? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend's statement about entering Europe is nonsense if the Board of Trade will not take action along this line?

That is very much wider than the original Question. We are here dealing with E.F.T.A.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage British enterprises to set up subsidiaries in Latin America, following the visit there of the Foreign Secretary.

The Board of Trade and our Embassies in Latin America are glad to help British firms interested in local manufacture with licensing agreements and the sale of know-how. The transfer of capital to subsidiaries in Latin America is subject to the exchange control regulations currently in force.

I recognise the present exchange difficulties. However, does not a dollar premium have to be paid in most of these cases? Is there not a danger that we shall be permanently excluded from these opportunities unless we can get in fairly soon in many of these countries?

Since the visit of the Foreign Secretary we have done our utmost to try to establish closer links with Latin America.

Is not one of the difficulties about setting up subsidiaries in countries like Brazil the severe limitations on the dividends which South American countries permit to come back to this country? Can the Board of Trade do anything about raising those limitations or dividends so as to make British overseas capital more profitable?

I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what success the Committee for Exports to Latin America is having in persuading more firms, and especially smaller firms, to take an interest in the Latin American market.

The Committee for Exports to Latin America are rightly concentrating their efforts on those industries for which the market potential is greatest. They report an increasing interest in Latin America among firms of all sizes.

Will the Minister give an assurance that this Committee will have every help in its very useful work, particularly in analysing the opportunities which now exist in Latin America?

Certainly. In response to a recent questionnaire from the Committee, 385 firms said that they were willing to discuss export opportunities in Latin America with a member of the Committee.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that since the visits of the Foreign Secretary much of industry has become more conscious than ever before of the trade opportunities which exist in Latin America? Unless we have much more action from the Board of Trade than was implied in the two Answers which we have just received, the trade opportunities resulting from the visits will have been wasted.

The hon. Gentleman must have thought of that supplementary question before he heard my last answer. Did he not hear me say that since we set up this Committee 385 firms have shown interest?

That was a rhetorical question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Press that he should exercise his powers under the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate and regulate the control of newspaper undertakings whose equity is held substantially by nominees.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider exercising powers under the Companies Act to investigate the true ownership and control of any paper undertaking where grounds exist (for example, where the Press Council is unable to obtain sufficient information). He has no power under the Act to regulate the control of newspapers.

Did not the Royal Commission recommend that the Board of Trade itself should take the initiative in this matter and not wait to have matters brought to it?

Yes, that is perfectly true, but the Board of Trade cannot exercise control over newspapers in the sense of a daily examination of what they are doing, or a daily examination of their share dealings. Whatever the Royal Commission may have said, facts have to be brought to the attention of the Board of Trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates were granted for firms to develop in the King's Lynn area in each quarter of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965.

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

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although there has been a very welcome increase, I understand, there was a lack of correlation between housing and industry a couple of years ago with the result that about 100 houses are now standing idle? Will he bear that in mind when considering future applications for I.D.C.s?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, we have had discussions with the King's Lynn Council and the Greater London Council and we are doing everything we can to improve phasing of housing and industrial development.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what criteria, apart from unemployment, he is now taking into account in designating development areas.

As explained in Command Paper 2874, the development areas will be chosen with reference to the Government's wider regional policies and will take account of all relevant economic circumstances. In particular, account will be taken of such factors as population change, including migration, and employment trends as well as the level of unemployment.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the scandalous variations in earnings between different regions and the fact that earnings in parts of East Anglia just about equal National Assistance in the development areas? Will he give an assurance that the lines of division in the White Paper on investment allowances will not be the last word when legislation is introduced?

Yes, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend knows, because of his persistent questioning, which I very much welcome, that we are taking earnings into account in some circumstances, and we will certainly follow up the last part of his question.

Is it not entirely inconsistent with the Government's designation of the new development areas, thus getting away from the concept of smaller development districts, that they should have excluded from the development areas, as it were, pockets of non-development areas, such as Edinburgh, North Wales and South Wales?

At the moment we are discussing King's Lynn.

indicated dissent.

In regard to King's Lynn—[Interruption.] If I can take King's Lynn as an example of the issues which my hon. Friend raised in the Question, King's Lynn has an overspill arrangement with London which we think will work out just as satisfactorily as treating it as a development district, and I am assured that this is how it will work.

Ingenious, but too long.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are being made to provide alternative employment for those miners whose work at the pit at Deafhill, County Durham, will come to an end.

I understand that most of the men employed at Deafhill will be offered jobs in nearby collieries. There are also opportunities for alternative employment for men in the new town of Peterlee about eight miles away, where new industrial developments are going forward.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very much surprised that there appears to be alternative employment in industry in the new town of Peterlee? For years during the period when the Opposition were in Government I tried hard to get new industry injected there and failed. Now my expectations are greater.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the state of monopoly in the bread-baking and confectionery trade.

My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we on this side hope that he does not leave this until there are only two firms left in the business?

We shall keep the situation in mind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on investment in the distributive trades of the exclusion of retailing and distribution from the new system of investment allowances.

No precise estimate can be made, but I expect that, as forecast in Chapter 5 of the National Plan, investment in the distributive trades will grow less rapidly than in recent years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Plan suggests that particular attention has to be paid to productivity in the distributive trades? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the exclusion of these trades from the benefit of investment grants is a good example of this attention?

The distributive trades will not be left out altogether. Under the new system they will get 30 per cent. initial allowances for plant and machinery, including vehicles, and they will get help with shop fittings, furnishings and office machinery. We think that this will be satisfactory.

In answer to an earlier Question, the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that most of the industrial and commercial bodies were in favour of this new system of investment allowances? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House of one single body which is in favour?

We have had representations from most of the trade associations concerned. Some of them were critical of parts of the plan, some accepted parts, and it would be quite impossible to give a "yes or no" answer, or to name precisely anyone who answered.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that members of the little Neddy on machine tools were in favour of this system of investment grants?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the necessary Government support will now be given for the construction of a national industrial exhibition centre on the Crystal Palace site.

My right hon. Friend has recently received a report from the Greater London Council. A full examination of the proposals will take some time, but the Government will reach a decision as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that there are four major international industrial exhibitions which may come to this country in 1971 if this exhibition centre is open? Is he further aware that there is no chance of the exhibition centre at Crystal Palace being open if the Government do not make a decision by Easter?

Yes. We are treating this matter as one of urgency.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he proposes to take following the discussions between his Department and the Caxton Publishing Company Limited on sales methods.

I am continuing to watch the position closely.

Would my hon. Friend accept that his examination of the material sent to him by the Consumer Council and myself about this is appreciated? Does he realise that evidence is still coming in that this company has been using misleading sales methods and threatening customers who have been the victims of these methods? Would he now consider taking further steps to deal with the situation?

I should be very glad to have the information mentioned. An official of the Board of Trade saw representatives of the company in November and as a result its sales methods, we were told, would be altered. If my hon. Friend has further information we would be very glad to look at it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm which starts a project in a new development area, not previously in a development district, between 17th January 1966, and the date of entry into force of the legislation foreshadowed in paragraph 51 of Command Paper No. 2874, Investment Incentives, will qualify for the grants to be introduced under that legislation.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly on this and certain other questions arising in connection with the proposals in Cmnd. 2874.

Does not this uncertainty lead to postponement of projects? Is this not, therefore, part of the Chancellor's credit squeeze rather than an inducement?

Yes, this is one of the factors. [Laughter.] I am not agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. This is one of the factors which my right hon. Friend will mention in a statement which will be made shortly.

Will the Minister's right hon. Friend be informing the House on that occasion whether there is to be any right of appeal against the refusal by the Board of Trade to give an investment grant in any circumstances?

I shall certainly put that point to my right hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much less the new scheme of investment incentives will cost Her Majesty's Government compared with the previous investment allowances; and if he will apply this saving to making payments earlier than 18 months hence.

I do not expect the new scheme of investment incentives to cost less than the previous arrangements. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many economists and accountants think that the Government are going to save £100 million on this scheme as compared with that introduced by the Conservative Government? In view of that, ought not the Government's scheme to have been brought in much more quickly?

We do not accept that because the previous scheme was associated with a company's profits and taxation. It is true that the cost of investment allowances under Income Tax and Profits Tax would have been substantially higher—upwards of £300 million—but this is merely because the value of investment allowances, unlike grants, reflects the level of taxation. The tax on retained profits under Corporation Tax will be significantly less under Income Tax.

The hon. Gentleman has given one side of the equation. Would he now tell us what is the difference in cost between the old system of investment allowances, which operated in 1964, and the new system of investment grants which will operate in the future?

It is quite impossible to answer that question because the cost of grants will depend upon the level of investment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories are complete but empty in Scotland; and, in view of the fact that the old development areas have lost their special investment status, what new efforts are being made to find tenants for these factories.

There are only two completed advance factories in Scotland which are not yet allocated. The proposals for new investment incentives in the White Paper (Cmnd. 2874) should serve to reinforce the efforts already being made to secure tenants for these and for other advance factories still being built.

While appreciating that Scotland as a whole has now been made a development area, with advantages to many places, is the Minister satisfied that he will be able to find tenants for these two factories, one of which has been vacant for some time?

Many inquiries are coming along and they lead us to think that there will be no difficulty in finding tenants.

Since only two advance factories are not being used, will the Minister state what provision he is making to provide more advance factories in the north-east of Scotland, where they are badly needed and where they can obtain power from the new reactor station near Dounreay?

I think that my hon. and learned Friend has a Question on the Order Paper dealing with this point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when next he proposes to pay an official visit to Scotland.

My right hon. Friend was in Glasgow early in January and is always willing to visit Scotland as occasion arises.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply, when he is next in Scotland would his right hon. Friend be so good as to spare the time to visit East Lothian and Berwickshire, because local authorities in those two counties would be very happy to put some propositions before him, if he could see them on the spot?

I will put the suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but I have a suspicion that the job will fall on me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to increase trade with North Vietnam.

Our trade with North Vietnam has always been extremely small, and in present circumstances there is little scope for increase.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. McNamara, the American Defence Secretary, said to the American Senate recently that the British Government were bringing great pressure to bear on British shipowners to decrease their trade with North Vietnam? What pressure has in fact been brought to bear? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our trade with North Vietnam has doubled in the past year?

I am not aware of any British ships under the direct control of British owners which are trading to North Vietnam.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Japanese Government following the original Exchange of Notes concerning Voluntary Export Control in November 1962, in connection with the Treaty of Commerce Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan which was ratified in 1963; which product groups are now the subject of control as a result of direct Board of Trade inter vention; and which product groups are controlled as a result of negotiations between the respective industries in this country and Japan.

Discussions took place in 1963, 1964 and 1965 on the quotas for items listed in the Exchange of Notes. The only other product now subject to voluntary export control, as a result of our intervention, is stainless steel tableware, which was freed from import restrictions on 1st January, 1966. I am not aware of any control imposed as a result of negotiations between British and Japanese industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing adverse balance of payments on visible trade? What is his view about that? What is the position with regard to the cutlery industry? Is he taking steps to avoid re-exports through third parties in other countries?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about cutlery, he should know that if the Japanese voluntary export control fails to prevent serious injury to British cutlery manufacturers we can invoke the safeguard provisions of the first protocol to the Treaty; and that seems to be a sufficient safeguard.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he took in respect of an illegal advertisement, referred to him by the hon. Member for Swindon on 25th August last, which contravened the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957; for how long the illegal advertisement appeared; what information he has concerning other similar advertisements; for how long such advertisements appeared; and what action he will take to prevent similar offences in future.

The directors of the company concerned and its advertising agents were interviewed and agreed to change their advertising to comply with the requirements of the Act. This they appear to have done. Similar cases which are brought to the Board's attention are investigated.

With respect, my hon. Friend has not said for how long the advertisement appeared. Does he consider it enough to interview people who are breaking the law? Why was not a prosecution instituted?

Because we thought that we could get the advertising changed much more quickly this way.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to prevent United States interests securing control of more than 70 per cent. of the British dental manufacturing industry, thus cutting out part of the export trade, through the proposed take-over of Amalgamated Dental Company Limited by Dentists Supply Company of New York.

On 10th February, my right hon. Friend referred to the Monopolies Commission the proposed acquisition of the Amalgamated Dental Co. Ltd. by either the Dentists' Supply Co. of New York or the Dental Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his right hon. Friend has the power to preserve the status quo with these companies while they are before the Monopolies Commission? If not, will he urge the Monopolies Commission to take power to ensure that the status quo is preserved, otherwise it is no good bringing the matter before the Commission?

My right hon. Friend has this power under the Act and any merger can be stopped. No merger can then take place until the Monopolies Commission has reported.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers about the threat of famine in India.

asked the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the appeal by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation for help to the Indian Government to meet the famine which now threatens 100 million people.

Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a number of Governments of non-Commonwealth countries are already in close touch with each other and with the Government of India about the threatened famine. As the House is aware, we, for our part, have made an immediate and interim contribution in the form of an interest-free loan to India of £7½ million.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied that in the weeks since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for a special programme of help to relieve the famine the British and other Commonwealth Governments have done all that they can to ensure an expansion of the capacity of Indian ports and an increased supply of vitamins, and so on? Will he confirm that the £7½ million to which he referred falls almost wholly within sums already pledged to India? Will he agree that there is a genuine—

Order. Even supplementary questions to the Prime Minister must be short.

While welcoming, as I did, the Leader of the Opposition's statement, the special programme of aid started before he made his statement. Only today the Australian Government, with whom we have been in touch this week, have announced a very big shipment of food to India in addition to what everyone else is doing.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the action which the Government have already taken, may I ask him whether he will consider that this is not only a gigantic humanitarian problem but a gigantic political problem and that if the West fails to give adequate help to Mrs. Gandhi the results, both short term and long term, may be very grave, and, if necessary—

Order. I think that that is long enough.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. Although, as he said, the Leader of the Opposition and I said in the recent debate that the problem is above all a problem of port capacity and of internal distribution, some very massive shipments of food are being organised.

Will the Prime Minister recognise that the help which the Government are giving, which he describes as £7½ million, consists of £6 million which was already pledged for normal economic development in India separately from the famine relief? Therefore, the only additional amount which the Government are making available is £1½ million. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this matches up to the scale of the problem in India? Secondly, will he assure us that he will, if necessary, make available from the strategic stocks which we have the port handling equipment which he has said is one of the greatest needs?

The right hon. Gentleman has made the first point before. We thought it right to reallocate that part of the aid for this purpose because we are dealing with an emergency and not long-term development. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that we should increase in total the amount of aid, that is a matter which could be considered at any time within the overall ceiling on Government expenditure, which I hope he supports.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science on comprehensive education delivered at Harrogate on 7th January, 1966, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

I answered this Question on 8th February, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply on that date still left the position very far from clear, with particular regard to the future position of the direct grant schools? Would not he agree that it would be much wiser if both he and his Ministers began to talk in terms of reopening and extending the list of direct grant schools rather than threatening closure?

I thought I dealt with this matter the last time that it was raised and referred to the position of direct grant schools. I also invited hon. Members to put detailed questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science if they wished. I am glad, however, that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has given his support to the policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an inquiry into the organisation and efficiency of the Civil Service.

I have, Sir.

While welcoming the fact that the Prime Minister has already yielded on this point, may I ask him whether he will assure the House that this inquiry will not be used as a pretext for putting off necessary reforms and reductions? Will he also assure us that there is nothing in the terms of reference of this inquiry which preclude the speedy setting up of specialist Parliamentary committees?

The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman goes far beyond this Question. It is a matter which has been considered by the various bodies of the House concerned with this question. I did not yield to anybody. I announced the setting up of the inquiry as soon as I was ready. I had been working on the matter for some time.

Does the Prime Minister still adhere to his oft-repeated remark that we have the best Civil Service in the world, or does he share the views, published today, of his Parliamentary Private Secretary condemning the British Civil Service outright? If he does not share those views, will he now repudiate them?

I could see that question formulating in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I stand exactly by what I have said on a number of occasions. What I have been wondering since we came to power is why this superb Civil Service machine was so badly used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange for a group of Privy Councillors, selected from all parties, to visit Rhodesia.

I do not think this is the right time, Sir.

Was not this the Prime Minister's own suggestion? Will he accept that the negative policy of imposing hardship and unemployment on 4 million helpless Rhodesians is arousing growing distaste? Will he seek to do something constructive?

Distaste is a feeling that occurs to some of us on other matters. We have had a Privy Councillor in Rhodesia this week. We hope to hear from him when he finally gets back. He did not arrive in time for last night's debate, for reasons which we all understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—for reasons we all understand and which were forecast. One thing that bears on the timing of this, which was my idea, is that if Privy Councillors when they go to Rhodesia are not allowed to see the people they ask to see, this might diminish the value of a visit by a Privy Councillor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas a Parliamentary delegation would probably be desirable at the right moment, the fact that it is composed of Privy Councillors will not be met with undiluted enthusiasm from all quarters?

I am prepared to consider that. The House will, of course, know that I proposed a mission of Privy Councillors to Mr. Smith as long ago as December, 1964, and that it was simply rejected by him at that time. I should like to see more signs that Privy Councillors will be allowed to meet the people they want to meet if we make such a proposal.

Is the Prime Minister aware, as I have already stated in public, that all the information which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has been able to obtain during his ten days in Rhodesia will be made available to the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary if they so wish, but that the cheap sneers which the Prime Minister has just made do not give one any confidence that they will receive proper consideration?

The words I used were based on the assumption that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be desirous of reporting to everyone concerned with the Rhodesian problem. I am a little concerned to know—perhaps we can be reassured on this—whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made quite plain, as the Leader of the Opposition himself said in a public statement, I think in Punch, that there should be no question of negotiating with Mr. Smith until he calls off the illegal independence. I should like to know whether the Opposition stuck to that in Rhodesia.

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has said, is it not the general opinion of the House that if all the Privy Councillors were sent business would be expedited?