asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has examined the imported toy called a Cong Buster which was sent to him by the hon. Member for Poplar; and whether, in Great Britain's present economic circumstances, he will put into force the licensing system so as to keep out such inessential imports.

Much as I, too, dislike this toy it would be extremely difficult—indeed, for all practical purposes, impossible—to use the import licensing system to prohibit its sale over here.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and his colleagues cannot possibly hope to convince over 20 million people that they must forgo wage increases in order to defend the pound, and ½ million people that they must accept unemployment in order to defend the pound, if the Government permit the defences of the pound to be dissipated by the importation of rubbish without any let or hindrance?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but we cannot use the import licensing system for other than strictly commercial purposes. There are other means of stopping the importation of unnecessary and offensive articles which my hon. Friend might like to consider.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present level of aircraft noise over Central London; how this compares with previous years; and what is the maximum tolerable amount under his regulations.

Noise limits are imposed, and regular measurements made, only at the monitoring points near Heathrow; but the height of aircraft over Central London is controlled and we estimate that noise from individual aircraft in this area rarely exceeds 100 PNdB. Disturbance has increased, mainly due to growth in traffic, but I cannot quantify this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even before Concord a growing number of the neighbours of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade found the present level of noise intolerable? It is getting worse. Will not my hon. Friend do the same as Paris and ban fights over Central London?

Not at this stage. Few aircraft departing from Heathrow fly over Central London. But most that come in have to fly over Central London. However, there are strict limits on their height. None flies lower than 2,000 ft.

As the life of those living below the glidepath to London Airport, particularly in Richmond and Barnes, is becoming intolerable, will the hon. Gentleman make it plain that his Ministry will take steps to deal with the matter by such measures as raising the angle of the glidepath when the wind is over a certain velocity rather than put forward public relations suggestions? This is a matter which is causing concern to hundreds of thousands of people in London.

I sympathise with all those residing near airports and suffering unnecessary perturbation. Some of the aircraft fly below the required level. and consequently the noise increases. But it is not possible for us to apply too strongly very strict limits on pilots making approaches to the aerodromes and thus endanger the lives of those on board.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, while we all accept that there is no immediate or magic cure for this problem, there must be a positive policy to do something about it? Sympathy is not enough. Will he recall the promises which the Prime Minister made during the 1964 election?

I cannot recall my right hon. Friend's promises. It is not just sympathy. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, next month there is to be an international noise conference in London. At least 27 countries may be participating, all with a view to trying to rectify this growing problem.

asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much British exports to Cuba have increased in the last three years; and what action is being taken to continue to develop trade with Cuba.

British exports to Cuba, which had fallen to £2·1 million in 1963, were £15·1 million in 1965. My Department offers the same services to British industry to develop trade with Cuba as are offered for trade with other countries. We cannot, however, permit the export of strategic goods to Cuba.

Can my hon. Friend give details of pressure from foreign countries to stop us increasing our trade with Cuba? Can he give a firm guarantee today that in no circumstances will we allow ourselves to be put in the position that we stop increasing our trade with that country?

I am not aware that we have been pressurised as such.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the coastguard station and cottages at Ilfracombe, North Devon, are without electricity, that the station cannot therefore make direct radio contact with the lifeboat at sea, and that radio messages have to be transmitted to Hartland Point some 20 miles distant and then telephoned back; and whether, in the interests of safety, he will authorise the installation of mains electricity at this station.

The present arrangements do not prejudice safety. It is common practice for communications with lifeboats to be routed through the coastguard district headquarters. It would be for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to authorise the installation of mains electricity.

Since the coastguard station is under the responsibility of the Board of Trade, would not the Minister agree that it would never be his wish to pass the buck? Is it not ludicrous that a coastguard station is still lit by gas, that no radio message can be received and that it has to be beamed 20 miles away to Hartland or Mullacott Cross? In the interests of saving life, surely it is not too much to ask that the station should be lit by electricity and should have a radio set to receive messages from sea.

As to the safety at sea problem, the present arrangements are satisfactory and, so far, no difficulties have arisen. As to electrifying the three cottages concerned, an estimate has been given that the cost would be £6,900. I understand, however, that the electricity authority in the region concerned is aware of this and that it will be involved in the authority's plans for the future.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for the owners of sea-going vessels to have third party insurance for damage or injury to passengers and cargo;

It is already an offence to send a British ship to sea in such an un-seaworthy state that the life of any person is likely to be endangered. Nothing in the contract of carriage between a shipowner and his customer can affect this obligation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable astonishment at his reply in view of the fact that it is understood that contracts can, and do, contain exemptions on the back—I have one in my hand at the moment—which make it impossible for a claim, according to the contract, to be sustained even if the ship is unseaworthy? Will my hon. Friend go into the matter again and make sure that the law is sufficient to cover these cases?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have details of the case he has in mind, and I will certainly look into it.

Is it the intention of the Minister to introduce national registration for small ships that ply for hire? A considerable number of accidents were caused in the summer and we wish this system to be brought in because lives are at stake.

Although we are considering how best we can improve the safety of these small vessels which ply for trade around the coast, we have not at this stage seriously considered national registration of all these craft.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any cost to the public revenues arising out of the acquisition by the British Overseas Airways Corporation of the shares held by Fortes (Holdings) Limited in Bofort Limited.

No, Sir. The cost will be met from B.O.A.C.'s internal resources.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that gratifying Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the dissolution of this unseemly marriage between B.O.A.C. and Fortes gives great satisfaction to those of us on this side who pressed that it should never take place and were told by the Government for their pains that they were talking nonsense?

Yes, it is pleasing.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the air crash at Ljubljana.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the report issued by the Yugoslav Inquiry Commission on the accident to a Britannia airliner near Ljubljana, resulting in the death of 98 persons, on 1st September in which the pilot is blamed; what inquiry he intends to make; and if he will make a statement.

An inquiry has been instituted by the Yugoslav authorities in accordance with international procedure, and an inspector of accidents from the Board of Trade is participating in it. A communiqué on the progress of the investigation issued in Belgrade on 17th September included a statement that the pilot flew incorrectly below the normal approach path but that the Commission had not yet been able to establish the reason for the low flight. The inquiry is continuing, and this is one of the issues to be determined.

Since the chief pilot involved in this tragedy was one of my constituents and, I understand, had been flying very close to the fatigue limits, what action are the Government taking to deal with companies which have been breaking pilot fatigue regulations? Is any revision of the Air Navigation Order planned? In view of the possibility of a mistake occurring due to lights on the road at Ljubljana, will the hon. Gentleman require a minimum number of training flights in varying conditions at difficult airports in future?

I am not aware that the pilot concerned had exceeded the flying hours involved. Secondly, as the hon. Member knows, we are considering fresh flight time limitations, and matters of this kind will be taken into consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend recollect that the Munich disaster was blamed, as happens too often, on the pilot, who, fortunately, lived to prove his innocence? Will my hon. Friend assure us that Munich will not be repeated at Ljubljana and that there will be a full inquiry into the causes of that disaster and not the hasty run-over that we have had recently?

The full inquiry is taking place and it would be wrong at this moment to prejudge the results.

Will the Minister, through the appropriate international channel:—because I realise that this is an international matter—take what steps he can to make sure that pilots do not get blamed in this way through intermediate reports and that this sort of statement is not issued until a complete report is available?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. They certainly will be noted.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual loss of light aircraft and occupants in the last five years in the light aircraft channel from Folkestone to Gris Nez.

None in 1962 and 1963. One aircraft ditched near a ship in 1964 and one near the shore in 1965. One pilot was killed. A helicopter disappeared in July, 1966, and the pilot's body was later recovered from the sea.

In thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the radar screen is sufficient to locate these aircraft at short notice?

I do not think that that is the problem. As the hon. Member will have noticed from my reply, the flying is done in a light-aircraft channel between England and France, and only two small aircraft have been affected in two years. Both came down into the sea because of engine trouble. The other accident was to a helicopter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the results of the report on the Cadco affair in Glenrothes, Fife; and whether any prosecutions are now imminent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report of the Lord Advocate on the Cadco affair; and what action he intends to take.

With permission, I will answer this Question and No. 7 for Written Answer together.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give a certain measure of satisfacton in that the report is to be published in due course? In view, however, of the fact that Mr. Loraine and Mr. Roe are likely to be in Switzerland and America for a prolonged holiday, will my right hon. Friend undertake that the report will be published in a completely unexpurgated form and that nothing will be deleted from it?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase in imports he is expecting in the first three months after, compared with the three months before, the removal of the 10 per cent. surcharge; and what action he is proposing to correct this increase.

Some temporary increase in imports is expected to take place after the surcharge is removed, but this was fully taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we should achieve a surplus for 1967 as a whole on current and capital account combined. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in July that the far-reaching economic measures taken then were designed to improve our general economic position and to restore our balance of payments.

Will the Minister of State give an assurance that when he sees how the figures work out he will on no account take any action prejudicial to our partners in E.F.T.A.?

That undertaking has already been given by the Prime Minister.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in each of the past 10 years, despite the heavy inflation in some of those years, imports have risen in real terms steadily year by year? In view of the massive encouragement being given by the removal of the surcharge, has he any reason to expect that we shall see anything other than a massive increase in imports?

Yes, Sir. The facts, as we see them, were given in a series of replies in the House, and we have come to the conclusion that although, as I have said, there will be some increase in imports, we do not think that it is likely seriously to interfere with the balance of payments projects which we have in mind.

What estimate has the Board of Trade made of the increase in the three months following the removal of the surcharge? Obviously the Government have made some estimate, otherwise they could not be planning ahead in a sensible way. If they have made an estimate, why can it not be given?

Estimates in these circumstances are likely to be very temporary ones and perhaps not very useful, in the circumstances. We have decided that we are not going to introduce import quotas. We shall see how this goes along, and we think that the judgment which we have taken will work out all right.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to control imports following the lifting of the import surcharge.

None.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that negative response is most disappointing to many of us on this side of the House? Does he not feel that there is a very strong case for examining the need for selective, flexible quotas to keep out non-essential imports; otherwise, how does his right hon. Friend propose to keep down the inevitable increase in imports which will occur when economic expansion is resumed?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained on 26th July the difficulties about using import quotas for the purposes which my hon. Friend has mentioned. First of all, they would be only a temporary remedy, and we have already used the import surcharge in substitution for them on temporary grounds. If we were now to introduce quotas in these circumstances, the first effect would be a retaliation from the countries concerned and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) has said, the E.F.T.A. countries would seriously question such measures and, moreover, the quotas would not remove the need for disinflationary action.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree at once that if import quotas were imposed, they would deny opportunities to countries oversea, notably under-developed countries, to earn sterling with which to buy British exports? Is not the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) absolutely fallacious?

That is the reason why I mentioned the retaliatory character of quotas.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the steel industry is a special case in this respect? A very large increase in dumped steel imports is likely in the coming months, which will affect the steel industry in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and my own at a time of falling demand and short-time working.

The question of dumping is another matter altogether. We can deal with dumped imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to promote experiments in creating small publicly-owned industries in areas of underemployment.

None, Sir. The large number of publicly-owned factories, advance factories and others, now being built in the development areas together with the other financial assistance we provide to firms in these areas constitute the most valuable means of assisting further employment. These factories also provide opportunities for small-scale new industry to establish itself in these areas.

But, regrettably, is the Minister aware of the six empty advance factories in the Bathgate area at the present time, involving 40,000 sq. ft.? Is he aware of the 9 per cent. unemployment rate? Does his right hon. Friend recollect that in happier economic times, in October, 1965, I went to him and pleaded with him to conduct modest experiments along the lines of the Labour Party election manifesto on this subject of October, 1964?

Yes, Sir. I am aware both of the statements and the circumstances. But what we want to get in places like Bathgate is established industries which wish to expand in the development areas, and we are seeking such employers and industrialists for the factories which are available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade his colleagues in the Labour Government to try, as a novel experiment for this Government, to encourage private enterprise?

As, at the present time, free enterprise seems unlikely to give us the capital investment that we need for the future, does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is peculiarly the right time to make public investment to provide for that need?

I have been in most of the development areas during the recess and in the last few weeks. The most encouraging aspect of the situation there is the increasing number of inquiries for advance factories.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the situation is not encouraging? The report published this morning showed that production was stagnant in the first half of the year, private investment has fallen sharply in Scotland, we have more than three unemployed Scots for every available job, and the squeeze is only beginning. What is the Minister going to do about it?

During the last few weeks, I have laid foundation stones and opened advance factories in Scotland, every one of which has been taken by industrialists who are getting ready to move in.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall be raising the matter during the Adjournment debate which you have given me on this subject on Monday.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on negotiations with European Free Trade Area countries on the subject of more favourable tariff arrangements for British motor vehicles.

The chief problem is the revenue duties charged in Norway and Finland. Her Majesty's Government take every opportunity of impressing on the Norwegian and Finnish Governments their concern that E.F.T.A. exporters of important classes of motor vehicles receive no benefits over exporters from other countries. My right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter further while he is in Lisbon for the current E.F.T.A. meeting.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we wish him the best of good fortune in this matter, which has a great effect on the operations of the British Motor Corporation in Bathgate, a high percentage of whose exports go to E.F.T.A. countries?

Our contention is that certain E.F.T.A. countries are breaching the spirit of the E.F.T.A. rules. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be raising this in the course of his talks, and it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend to raise this again at a later date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will tabulate the numbers of bankruptcies recorded in the quarters ending 30th September, 1965, 31st December, 1965, 31st March, 1966, 30th June, 1966, and 30th September, 1966, respectively.

The number of receiving orders and administration orders in bankruptcy for each of the quarters was as follows:

Does not that show a shocking trend and prove that the Government are making the operation of private businesses intolerable? In view of those unfortunate figures, will arrangements be made to publish them monthly in the Board of Trade Journal?

They are published regularly in the Library. The reports for the years up to and including 1965 are available. This trend is in keeping with previous years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to introduce better fog landing aids for use during the coming winter at airports throughout the United Kingdom.

Instrument landing systems enabling aircraft to land in conditions of poor visibility and low cloud base are already installed at the following United Kingdom civil airports: London (Heathrow), London (Gatwick), Stansted, Prestwick, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Stornoway, Bournemouth and Middleton St. George. The performance of these systems is regularly checked and where possible is being improved to enable landings to take place in more critical conditions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is there any chance of hurrying up delivery of this new equipment, and does it include transmissometers, which I gather are being used on many airports overseas?

I do not think that we can possibly get the equipment which we require before the delivery date of early 1967. We have in mind installing similar equipment in Birmingham and Stansted so that technical evaluations can also take place.

Is it not the case that aircraft which use this landing system must carry the proper equipment to use it? How many aircraft still lack it?

I could not give the number without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will accept the offer made by Freeport in the Bahamas of a 100 acre site for a permanent export exhibition.

I have not received any offer but a representative of the Port Authority has discussed his ideas with my Department.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman will be receiving an offer. When he does so, will he bear in mind that Freeport is perhaps the fastest growing city in the world, 60 miles from the coast of Florida? It already attracts about half a million rich American business men and tourists every year, and therefore this may be a great opportunity for increasing our exports in an expanding market.

Discussions took place last week, and the port authority's representative is considering the next steps. Any scheme must depend on the support from British industry, and we must await its reactions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to arrest the decline in the level of industrial investment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the estimated drop in investment in manufacturing industry of 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. in real terms in 1967, as disclosed in the recent survey of investment prepared by his Department.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider providing a special premium rate of investment grants to industry during the period of the prices and incomes freeze to encourage re-equipment and capital investment in manufacturing industry against the period of renewed economic expansion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further proposals he has for increasing the rate of private capital investment in manufacturing industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the effect of the replacement of investment allowances and free depreciation in development districts by grants under the Industrial Development Act, as demonstrated by the report of the Confederation of British Industry's latest survey of manufacturers' investment intentions, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will now take steps to reintroduce free depreciation in development areas, increase the value of investment grants and accelerate their payment.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on the 25th October the Government are watching the trend of investment in industry very closely and are ready to discuss the situation with representatives of industry at any time.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the surest ways of making industry put off its plans and delay its investment decisions is to delay a decision on the question whether they will introduce grants and at what time, whether they will increase them, and whether they are to give some extra inducement? It is the delay that is causing failure to reach decisions.

I am not sure that that is entirely correct.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Board of Trade survey is really much too optimistic in showing a turndown of 6 per cent. to 7 per cent., in conflict with the Confederation of British Industry which shows a 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. turndown in manufacturing industry? Is it not clear that we are heading for the greatest slump in manufacturing industry investment since the 'thirties, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is studying a proposal for increasing or speeding up the cash grants?

The C.B.I. survey does not necessarily suggest a greater decline in investment than the Board of Trade survey, and both of them are examined very carefully in the Board of Trade Journal published today, which is well worth studying. The speeding up of the payment of grants is one of the matters which is being considered during the talks which the Chancellor mentioned.

As the Minister's Department has told me that the new system of investment grants is worth about one-third less than the old system, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a case for reintroducing free depreciation in the development areas, for a temporary period at any rate, to prevent this appalling decline in manufacturing investment to which my hon. Friend referred?

The Board of Trade has not told the hon. Gentleman that the investment grants will produce a lower yield, so to speak, than the investment allowances. The answer given to him yesterday was that a comparison between these figures was, however, not meaningful, and went on to explain why.

With regard to investment grants for new plant and machinery, would it be possible, until the 40 per cent. grant is paid in development areas, for firms, and especially small firms, to receive loans from my right hon. Friend's Department to tide them over until the grant is available?

That is one of the suggestions which will be considered in the discussions with industry.

As the Board of Trade's own forecast for next year suggests a drop in industrial investment of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., what on earth does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he is watching the trend? Are not he and his hon. Friends concerned about the present and prospective fall in capital investment in industry, and if so, what are they going to do about it? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the impression which he and his colleagues give is of floundering about with no idea what to do next, apart from increasing the pool of unemployed?

Of course we are concerned about these estimates of a possible turndown of investment in industry. Of course we are concerned about what may be a lack of confidence in markets in the future, but these matters will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor when he makes a statement on them.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking through the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation or otherwise to safeguard the large number of British passengers sailing in foreign ships from British ports.

An urgent study of fire safety standards for passenger ships is being made by I.M.C.O., the United Nations agency concerned. It is expected that the Assembly of I.M.C.O. will approve at the end of November new recommendations concerning the safety of existing ships. The question of standards for new passenger ships is also being studied urgently. The Board of Trade, representing the United Kingdom, is playing a full part in all this work.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Answer will be received with considerable satisfaction by those who have been in touch with certain unhappy incidents? Can he explain briefly how these new proposals, if adopted, will be enforced on foreign ships sailing from British ports, which is what the Question refers to?

I.M.C.O., the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, will make an international recommendation. There will be a time limit in which it will ask the maritime countries to accept its recommendations flowing from the November meeting.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the official translation of the Report of the Superior Court. S.E.N.A., in Greece inquiring into the loss of the "Lakonia"; and whether he will make a statement upon its findings.

Yes, Sir, I have received the official translation of this Report. It upheld the findings of the lower court as regards the origin of the fire and responsibility for the subsequent events and it increased the severity of the findings as regards negligence of certain members of the crew of the "Lakonia".

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that since a considerable number of British passengers were involved, this is a matter of lively concern in this country, and can he explain whether the Government have made any representations as to the liability of the owners? I appreciate that the court increased the liability of the crew to the owners, but what about the owners who allowed this decrepit hulk ever to go to sea?

I cannot clearly and honestly answer the question, but I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall write to him in due course.

Is it not the truth that if an international convention is signed as a result of a disaster, it usually applies to new vessels, and not to existing ones? Can something be done to put this right?

If the hon. Gentleman heard my original reply correctly, he will have noticed that I purposely stressed "existing vessels", and said that new vessels were also being urgently considered.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage industry in the Okehampton area of Devon.

I am always prepared to consider sympathetically I.D.C. applications for projects suited to the resources of the area.

Does the Minister realise the extreme disappointment that exists in this area of Devon because of the fact that an industrial firm that was coming is now not coming, due to the economic squeeze imposed by the Government? Will he take steps to see that some form of help such as is given in development areas is given in this area? If he does not we shall never overcome this serious problem.

This is not the only firm that has decided, in the past few years, not to come to this area. On the basis of the unemployment situation—as I have already explained to the hon. Member—it would be difficult to schedule this as a development area, but we certainly should look at the reasons why firms in the past have not followed up their applications.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many additional staff his Department will have to recruit to administer the Industrial Development Act; and how many of those have so far been recruited.

About 1,200 staff are required to administer investment grants. Nearly all the 215 senior posts have been filled. For the 770 junior posts, 480 suitable applicants have so far been selected. Some 200 clerical and supporting staff are being recruited locally.

Does not the Minister's Answer prove quite clearly that the machinery of this Act is wholly ineffective to act with the speed and efficiency which is required to deal with the economic circumstances which the Government's folly have produced?

On the contrary, as a result of the measures that we have taken—as we have explained time and time again—the investment grant system will be far more helpful to expanding British industrialists than the old investment allowances system, and the staff and cost of this operation will be well worth while.

In view of the procrastination that exists and the difficulties of getting satisfactory replies from the Beard of Trade when applications are made to it, will the Minister set up a searching inquiry into the administration of his organisation in order to bring it to the state of efficiency that we would expect in a first-class business?

I do not know what my hon. Friend means in this connection, because no applications could have been dealt with negligently, since no applications have yet been asked for.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many passenger cars were exported in the first nine months of 1966; and how these figures compare with the figures for the same period in 1964 and 1965.

The following is the Answer: 440,000, 513,000 and 477,000.

Do not these figures show that the motor industry was suffering increasing difficulties in a very important part of its market even before the July measures were introduced? Does not this make it more important to enable the industry to reduce its unit costs and to increase its exports by some relaxation of the restrictions imposed in the home market?

My hon. Friend is generally correct. Falls have occurred this year in exports of cars to the Common Market and to the European Free Trade Area, and I indicated earlier in Question Time one reason why they have fallen in respect of E.F.T.A. But sales to North America show a substantial increase.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to encourage science-based industries, such as electronics and medical products, to move to the South-West.

The attractions of the South-West development area and the incentives available to employers moving there are pointed out in discussions with industrialists who are seeking suitable locations for factories.

Does not the Minister agree that the South-West—particularly the Exeter area, in close proximity to Exeter University—is ideally suited for this type of industry? This would not only provide help and encouragement to young people to find technical jobs but would help to solve the problem of unemployment in the South-West.

That is true, but the difficulty is that so many other areas are in the same position, including Bathgate and Linwood.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will adopt the metric system for all units of measurement in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir. The Government's view is that the first step is to encourage industry to adopt the metric system.

Will it not be inevitable, in the end, that we shall have to move towards the metric system? In this case, would it not be a very good earnest of the Government's intention with regard to joining Europe to take the step positively and early rather than leaving it to industry?

I do not think that the hon. Member has thought out the difficulties and complications that would arise if we tried to impose the metric system—including, perhaps the decimalisation of currency—compulsorily upon industry, the retail trade, and all the other trading activities of the country at the same time. It is a little too much to ask.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the result of the appeal by Caledonian Airways to operate direct air services from Scotland to the Continent.

Very shortly. The Commissioner's report to the Board of Trade was greatly delayed in this instance by a dispute between the parties as to the record of evidence.

Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a need and, indeed, a demand in Scotland for direct air services to the Continent? Will he, therefore, do all he can, in the interests of Scotland, to make sure that the decision is speeded up, and that it is a favourable one?

I shall have to await the Commissioner's findings.

In considering this matter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind how much the travelling public would benefit by the injection of more enterprise and competition in air transport?

Certainly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the increase of United States investment in British industry.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend received in answer to his Question on 14th July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in this country at the increasing number of American take-over bids in British industry? Does not he agree that it is very stupid of the Tory Opposition to oppose nationalisation while remaining indifferent to foreign take-over bids in British industry?

Any take-over bids are examined by the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade considers it necessary they are referred to the Monopolies Commission for examination.

asked the Prime Minister what further steps he proposes to co-ordinate the work of Ministers engaged in economic planning.

asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Ministers concerned to co-ordinate measures to prevent heavy unemployment.

No new steps or measures of co-ordination are needed, Sir.

Does that mean that the Prime Minister is satisfied with the Government's economic planning? Will he read again the National Plan? Does not he agree that this has made a nonsense of purposive planning? Is not the thing to do to agree with the Conservative Party that what we really want, apart from productivity, is competition and incentive?

The measures taken by the Government are, in the Government's view, most likely to provide the basis on which we can advance in future without the danger of lurching into repeated balance of payments crises such as we have had all along. As for competition, it is a very vague prescription that we get from the Opposition. In some respects we have made key sectors of the economy—for instance, by means of a greater use of the Monopolies Commission—more likely to meet the competitive needs of industry.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how production is to be expanded by having 500,000 men out of work after redeployment has taken place? Secondly, as many Labour M.P.s and T.U.C. leaders regard deflation as utterly wrong, will my right hon. Friend now consider relaxing the deflationary measures before it is too late?

These matters have been debated at length on two days this week, but in answer to my hon. Friend's question, we have made clear that it is necessary to have a period when, in order to obtain a substantial redeployment of labour, we cannot contemplate any general let-up in the policies that we have taken until we are in balance, and are seen to be in balance. In respect of particular problems of investment and matters of that kind, I told the Productivity Conference—and it has been repeated by my right hon. Friend—that some of the resources that have been freed as a result of our measures could properly be used to provide stimulants to investment, and, as I have told the House, this is what we are examining.

How does the Prime Minister expect exports to increase when home consumption is going down, with the result that the price of exports is bound to be put up, as in the case of motor cars?

It has been argued in past years whether we need a large home market with overspill at lower prices, but if we have a home market which has been booming too fast the result is that important export firms cannot get the labour or other resources necessary for increasing exports. Certainly this year the position has been that many of our best export firms have order books which are far too long and also far too uncertain in delivery, than which there is no worse inhibition to increased exports.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that his statement of 20th July, in which he referred to a figure of 2 per cent. unemployment after redeployment—reaffirmed this week by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour—has caused great concern in this country? Will he not give a categorical assurance that the Labour Government will not stand for a level of 500,000 unemployed under any circumstances?

What I said in answer to a question—and in answer to questions elsewhere—and two separate questions were involved here—was that after redeployment this was a figure that we could contemplate, but I said that we did not envisage keeping it at that level, and the turning point from the disinflation which has been necessary to the expansion that we are all looking forward to and working for is the moment when we are in balance in our balance of payments.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what he now considers to be a realistic figure for the rate of growth up to 1970 under these policies?

No, Sir, I think that it would be very difficult to make an estimate, but I believe, as I have said a number of times, that the measures which were taken are more likely to enable us to resume rapid growth early without lurching into the crises which hon. Gentlemen opposite always had whenever we had a few months' boom.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a figure for the rate of growth, can he tell us what is to be the basis of the Government's programmes in future?

The basis of the Government's programmes will be a continued expansion on the lines of the National Plan. The timing of the period of growth will depend on the speed and thoroughness with which we get into balance. Criticism does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, who three times expanded for eight or ten months, each time producing a bigger balance of payments deficit.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his official correspondence with Mr. Ian Smith.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Rhodesian negotiations.

I have had no such correspondence, Sir, and, as hon. Members well know, there are no negotiations. As for the visit of Sir Morrice James to Salisbury I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on Tuesday last to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Is there a time limit to the current talks, and, if so, when does it expire? Would the right hon. Gentleman also say clearly what is causing the real difficulty—the provisions of an independence Constitution or what he has termed "a return to constitutional rule"?

It is not a question of what I termed it—it is a question of constitutional rule. I should have thought that the hon. Member would understand that the present régime is totally illegal and that it must return to constitutional rule. I have some difficulty, despite the extraordinary statement from the Rhodesian soi-disant Minister of Information about censorship, in going back on the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave at this stage, about making public the progress of the talks and of the exchanges, but I will go as far as I can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lose no opportunity of impressing on the House and the country the appalling risks now of failure? Does he realise that, pending mandatory sanctions, the South African economy is on a war footing and that manufacturers have been warned against ordering capital goods either from this country or from the United States? In these circumstances, would it not be criminal folly to allow these negotiations or talks—whatever the right hon. Gentleman likes to call them—to founder over the question of legalities, or obsessive concern with legalities, rather than with the constitutional question, which means the future of the peoples of Rhodesia, which should come first?

I think that the last few words of the hon. Gentleman show at what level we should rank his contribution. If these talks founder, they will founder because those in Rhodesia will not accept the implementation of principles laid down by the previous Government and by this Government, which at any rate they have said that they accept——

They do not trust you.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to throw remarks of that kind about, many of us can confirm that the Rhodesians said that if they had been dealing with this Government all along and not with certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, there might have been agreement. I am quoting from Mr. Smith whom some hon. Members opposite regard as the authority on these matters. That is what he said and I have quoted it in the House before and I said in the House and I said to Mr. Smith that I thought that it was unfair, assuring him that we do not approach these questions quite in the spirit of the hon. Members opposite——

We don't need to be defended by you.

So far as the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is concerned, his actions up to 16th October, 1964, need no defence; since then, his actions are incapable of defence. [Interruption.]

Order. Question Time is going.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in view of the recent history of Rhodesia and the fact that Mr. Smith broke solemn guarantees which he gave both to Her Majesty's Government and to the Governor of Rhodesia, many hon. Members are convinced that it would be wrong to give Rhodesia independence until majority rule is an accomplished fact?

I am well aware of many of the reasons why we should proceed with the utmost caution and this is what we have done. There have been broken pledges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—not by us. There were broken pledges before U.D.I. U.D.I. itself was a totally illegal act and we have recently had the further provocation of the proposed changes in criminal jurisdiction and in the powers of detention. All these, of course, are reasons why we must proceed with the utmost caution, but it has been the view of the Government all along not to follow the advice of my hon. Friend, but to say that if we can get full and guaranteed implementation of the six principles, we could proceed to discuss it again.

asked the Prime Minister on what date the Ministry of Aviation is to be abolished; and which Ministries will take over the various responsibilities.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on Tuesday last. Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now many months since this decision was announced by the Government, that the aero-space and associated industries are in a condition of extreme uncertainty and that continued uncertainty cannot rebuild the confidence which is so badly needed as a result of the actions taken by his Government?

I am not so aware. I made the statement in June. The hon. Gentleman will realise the very significant problems here, particularly about the allocation between defence and the civil side, and it is right that we should get the right answer, even if it takes rather longer than we had hoped.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in deciding to abolish one system of organisation—the Ministry of Aviation—before first making up his mind what to put in its place, he is breaking one of the acknowledged principles of good management, about which he so often lectures other people?

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have discussed fairly fully in the House the considerations which led to this decision. The only thing which is taking the time now is the problem of the exact demarcation between defence and technology. There are certain difficulties here and, in view of the history of the great waste to the taxpayer of insufficient consideration of these questions in the past, I hope that I will be forgiven for spending a little time getting it right.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the arrangements for Ministerial co-ordination in connection with industrial training and retraining schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable evidence that a number of large firms at present are not introducing training or retraining schemes? Would he consider further negotiations to enable them to overcome this difficulty?

This matter was fully debated earlier in the week and my right hon. Friend reported not only on the Government training centres but on what he described as the more important sector—industrial training. I believe that the present system, introduced by our predecessors and carried on and expanded by us, is right. If there is evidence that it is not being fully used, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to go into any individual case.

asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a view to preventing nuclear proliferation.

A considerable part of my discussions with Mr. Kosygin in my two visits to Moscow in February and July was concerned with the urgent need for a worldwide non-proliferation agreement and the means of attaining it.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the present problem of proliferation is one of the main reasons why disarmament negotiations are impossible?

Yes, Sir. I think that in every debate we and hon. Members in all parts have said that this is the most urgent problem facing the world today, and that in the field of disarmament particularly a non-proliferation agreement is more important than any other effort. There have been difficulties, which the whole House knows were fully discussed with Mr. Kosygin on two visits this year, and my right hon. Friend has now carried these talks further with Mr. Gromyko, in New York a fortnight ago.

Did not the Soviet Premier make it clear to the Prime Minister that one of the main obstacles to non-proliferation was the Government's proposal for an A.N.F., and is it not time that the Government made it clear that they dropped this proposal?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Mr. Kosygin and his colleagues have repeatedly made clear that one of the main obstacles to a non-proliferation agreement was the M.L.F., which was fanatically supported by half the previous Government.

While it is exceedingly important to get agreement between the nuclear Powers not to disseminate their nuclear weapons or knowledge, does not the Prime Minister agree that what is perhaps even more urgent is to devise some means of giving added security to the non-nuclear Powers as an inducement to remain non-nuclear?

Yes, Sir. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right here. And this applies both within the European setting and, indeed, in the very special considerations of the Asian and Middle Eastern settings. The nuclear Powers have spent some time trying to consider this problem. Indeed, Mr. Kosygin's own declaration in February was designed to give some assurance on that, though all of us feel that, whatever the difficulties are about, more is needed, as he said.