asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a Departmental inquiry to examine methods of assisting timber-using industry in development areas where forestry is a major local industry.

Timber-using industries wishing to establish themselves, or to expand in development areas, are eligible for the full range of incentives available in those areas. I see no reason for a special inquiry.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case we are talking of industries which not only give employment in development areas but utilise home-produced products and at the same time help to save imports?

Yes, I appreciate that. We should like to see timber-using industries established in the North-East of Scotland, and other parts of Scotland, too, but we think that this must rest on the commercial judgment of the firms concerned. We shall then give them all the help we possibly can.

Will not the 100-mile limit have a very adverse effect on these industries? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations that it be raised to at least 200 miles for the North of Scotland?

I do not think that it will have the kind of effect which the hon. Gentleman envisages, but I shall see that his views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a Departmental inquiry to examine industry in North-East Scotland, with a view to developing food processing and timber-using industries.

A study of North-East Scotland is already being undertaken by Professor Gaskin of Aberdeen University for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that this will include an investigation into the kinds of industry which might prosper in the area, including food processing and timber-using industries. As I said in answer to Question No. 1, the whole range of incentives will be available.

What help is the right hon. Gentleman's Department giving to this survey? It is the first time such a thing has been done. I hope that he is able to do something to help carry it forward quickly.

We shall give all the help that Professor Gaskin thinks he may need from the Board of Trade. We have a lot of information which may be of help to him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will be in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to diverting, as far as possible, small boat projects to shipbuilding firms in that area?

I shall see that those views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend. If there are other views which hon. Members wish to express, I shall see that they are passed on, too.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received about increases in insurance premiums generally; and if, in view of the further increases in many car insurance premiums and the continued uncertainties in this field, he will now take steps to ensure that cars are insured at the same time and in the same office as they are taxed.

Since 1st April, 1967, the Board of Trade has received 360 complaints about increases in insurance premiums generally. I doubt whether it would be desirable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

But will not my hon. Friend accept that it is only by the simultaneous taxing and insuring of cars that one can give a 100 per cent. guarantee of cover for every road user, thus avoiding the months of suffering caused by haggling between insurance companies and reducing the number of staff, who are at present duplicated, one set being used for taxation and the other for insurance purposes?

That suggestion might be considered; but I understand that the Ministry of Transport envisages difficulty in the sort of proposal which my hon. Friend has put forward, and it is really a matter for the Ministry of Transport.

asked the President of the the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been completed in the three months ended 1st March, 1968; and how many remain unlet of those which were completed before and after that date, respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been completed in the three months ended 1st March, 1968; and what proportion of these were in development areas.

In the three months ended 1st March, 1968, 11 advance factories, all within development areas, were completed, or which six have been allocated. Of the advance factories completed before that date, 36 remain unallocated: one advance factory has been completed since 1st March, 1968, but has not yet been allocated.

What steps is the President of the Board of Trade taking to publicise these factories to possible developers? Second, can the hon. Lady say specifically what progress is being made with the advance factory at Banff?

My right hon. Friend has mounted a large publicity campaign in order to draw the advantages of advance factories to as many industrialists as possible. I am sorry that land acquisition problems have held up the particular factory which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we hope that they are now solved.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to quantify the financial effect on the British tourist industry of the taxes proposed by the United States administration on American tourists' overseas expenditure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the likely effects on the British tourist trade of the recently announced United States restrictions on foreign travel by United States citizens; and what steps are being taken to offset the likely adverse effects.

In the absence of precise information about the tax and other measures that may be adopted in the United States, I can make no estimate.

Is not there at least a rumour that the United States is considering dropping its tax on overseas tourist travel? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a lesson for us that the positive way to solve our currency saving problem is to pursue a positive policy in regard to our tourist industry, rather than a negative policy restricting travel from this country?

I understand that the United States Administration has put certain proposals to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, which considered the proposals recently and has now deferred consideration of them. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that everybody looks forward to the earliest possible relaxation of the restrictions on overseas travel, but we want to get a surplus first, before deciding how to use it.

As the tourist industry is perhaps the only one where the customer enjoys the full direct benefit of the change in the exchange rate, is not there an urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman to implement the hotel and catering E.D.C. Report, particularly to put the hotel industry on the same tax basis as industrial manufacturing concerns?

There is a Question about the hotel industry and possible Government aid for it later on the Order Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about agreements between firms which are alleged to be beneficial to the nation's economy, but which are currently registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956; and how many such agreements he estimates would be exempted from the operation of that Act under the proposed new legislation announced on 14th February, 1968.

Representations have been received from the National Economic Development Council, some of the Economic Development Councils, and the Comfederation of British Industry. It is not possible to estimate how many agreements will be exempted, but applications for exemption will be stringently examined.

Does the Minister realise that the bodies to which he referred are very much interested parties, and that the Board of Trade must look after the consumer and other people? Will he think twice before by-passing the court, which is a much better judge of what is beneficial to the nation's economy than the Board of Trade or the distinguished bodies he mentioned?

I think that all the legislation designed to maintain competition and make sure that it prevails in British industry has come from the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade's views on these matters are pretty well known.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will estimate how many agreements between firms registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, are likely to be exempted from registration in order to assist the Government's prices and incomes policy under the proposed new legislation announced on 14th February, 1968.

No, Sir. I cannot give an exact estimate.

Is the suggestion in my Question true? If so, will the Minister think twice before by-passing the court, as I fear that the Board of Trade is at present inclined to by-pass the Monopolies Commission, because these two bodies have been set up by Parliament just for this purpose?

I can, of course, give the assurance that all the applications for exemption will be thoroughly examined, and only those agreements made at the express written request of a Government Department will be eligible for exemption. The exempted agreements will be published, and the exemption will apply to agreements to lower prices to keep them down, to limit price increases, and to operate the early warning system. The exemptions will be limited in time.

Does the Minister agree that whether or not they will be thoroughly examined is a matter that we shall be scarcely in a position to judge, because they will not be publicly examined in contrast with the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, or does he have a proposal for making a public examination of these two matters?

The hon. Gentleman is right. They will not be publicly examined in the same way as applications for exemption before the court are examined. But the exempted agreements will be published and limited in time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is now taking to promote tourist development in Scotland.

The Government's rôle in promoting the development of tourism is still under review, and a statement will be made in due course.

In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exhortations to take home holidays and Scotland's wonderful tourist potential, will the Minister ensure that a more adequate grant is given to the Scottish Tourist Board in place of the present ludicrously low grant given by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the attractions of Scotland. Where promotion is concerned, Scotland is doing pretty well.

Will my hon. Friend say what the trend in Scottish tourism was last year? Was there an increase as compared with the previous year?

There was a substantial increase, and I hope that it will continue this year.

Apart from going into questions of giving extra grants to the tourist industry in Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that a start should be made by removing the Selective Employment Tax from the tourist industry there?

That question might be addressed to my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Minister tell us when we can hope for the statement? Will he assure us that there will be a comprehensive statement on tourism, taking in the many points made from both sides of the House?

The statement, when it comes, will, I hope, be comprehensive. I still cannot give a date. It is a long and complicated matter, and we want to get it right. We want to do it as soon as possible.

Will the Minister consider learning the lesson of Eire, where tourism has been developed into a major asset, whereas in Scotland it remains a largely undeveloped asset?

There is still undeveloped potential in these islands. We are trying to develop them as fast as we can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to facilitate competition between British airline operators for North Atlantic scheduled services.

Six applications by independent airlines for North Atlantic scheduled services are now before the Air Transport Licensing Board. It would be wrong for me to offer any comment at this stage.

I appreciate the reluctance of the hon. Gentleman to offer any comment. Would not he agree that it would be a long overdue gesture to competition if the dominance of B.O.A.C. on this service were diminished to some extent?

The reluctance to which the hon. Gentleman referred is solely due to the fact that I might be involved in a judicial capacity at a later stage. Whether or not competition is really desirable on this route is one of the matters the Edwards Inquiry is going into.

Does my hon. Friend agree that increased competition between British airline operators on the Atlantic would cause nothing but rejoicing to our foreign competitors, and that the most appropriate action would be to induce the International Air Travel Association to lower transatlantic fares so that there would not be an artificial subsidy of less efficient foreign airlines?

There is a great deal of point in what my hon. Friend said.

Does the Minister recall that while British Eagle was operating on the North Atlantic route there was a rising British share of this traffic, and that the decrease dates from the time when British Eagle ceased to operate on it?

I doubt very much whether it was a case of cause and effect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the British National Exports Council with a view to promoting trade with the Republic of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

There is continuous consultation with the B.N.E.C. Area Committee for Southern Africa with a view to expanding our exports of non-military goods.

In view of the immense economic potential of this market and its likely political stability, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in this instance there is a case for a specific representation on his part to underline the importance he and his Department attach to this market?

The B.N.E.C. Area Committee for Southern Africa is perfectly well seized of the importance of this market as a whole, as is the Board of Trade. Subject to the ban on military goods, it is certainly a market which we want to see developed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the debate on arms exports, the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that ordinary trade with South Africa was of doubtful morality, was not repudiated by the Front Bench, though Ministers were asked to repudiate it? Will he make it perfectly clear it is the Government's policy to encourage and not discourage, this valuable trade?

On a point of order. The argument, as I recollect it, was not that it was of doubtful morality but that it was—

Order. That is a point of debate, not of order.

I regret that I did not have the pleasure of hearing my hon. Friend's speech on that occasion, but I have before me a quotation from the winding-up speech of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, which made it perfectly clear that the Government wished to develop normal commercial and trading relations with South Africa.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what instructions he has given to the British delegation to the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development conference in New Delhi regarding schemes to encourage private investment in developing countries.

The Government's attitude towards this question was set out in the 1965 White Paper on Overseas Development, and I have instructed the British Delegation in New Delhi to be guided by this.—[Cmnd. 2736.]

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while his speech at the New Delhi Conference was, on the whole, well received, it was unfortunate that there was in it no mention of private investment possibilities? Particularly in the light of the Strikker Report, are there not good possibilities for making public aim and private investment work better together in future?

There were two reasons for my omission of that aspect in my speech at New Delhi. First, speeches at U.N.C.T.A.D. and elsewhere tend to be much too long anyway, and I wanted to make a rather concentrated speech. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for he was in New Delhi, the question of private investment is not one of the burning controversial issues before the Conference. But, of course, I agree that it has a very important part to play.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the achievements of the 1968 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting in New Delhi; and if he will make a statement.

The Conference continues until 25th March. Discussions are still in progress on a wide range of issues in the Committees of the Conference and it is not possible at this stage to forecast the outcome of these discussions.

Could my right hon. Friend say what initiatives we have been able to take on preference schemes and how far we have been able to iron out the paralysing differences, particularly with the French. on a whole range of issues before the Conference?

As I think my hon. Friend knows we have played a very active part, not only in the Conference generally but particularly on this question he raised. Ironing out the differences of opinion amongst developed countries is a very difficult task indeed, which we certainly cannot yet claim to have achieved. It is the experience with these Conferences, I understand from those who have been to them before, that it is only in the last fortnight of the eight-week Conference that it gets down to a detailed discussion and the possibility of agreement. My estimate is that we are now just starting on the critical stages.

May I reinforce a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), and urge the right hon. Gentleman to do more, in the context of this Conference and elsewhere, to promote and encourage private investment abroad?

There may be a misunderstanding. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion about the rôle that private investment can play. The fact is that this is not one of the most controversial issues requiring to be settled with U.N.C.T.A.D.

While agreeing with the Minister that the last fortnight is likely to be crucial, as was shown by the rôle played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) in U.N.C.T.A.D. 1, could the Minister tell us whether he or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is likely to visit New Delhi at that time?

I have an absolutely open mind on this at the moment. This is something on which one must be guided by the advice of people on the spot. As the hon. Member knows, we have an extremely powerful delegation there but it has not as yet advised me that it would be necessary for me to go back. If it does I shall take it very seriously.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an outline of the compensation arrangements agred with British European Airways arising from the refusal by the Government to sanction the aircraft of their choice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the position regarding the second half of British European Airways' proposed re-equipment programme.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the aircraft re-equipment programme of British European Airways.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the aircraft re-equipment programme of British European Airways.

B.E.A. has sought my approval for the purchase of 26 Trident 3-B aircraft, with an option for 10 more. I have informed the Corporation that the Government approves the purchase of a fleet of Trident 3-B aircraft and have suggested that it should enter into negotiations with the manufacturers. Detailed approval must await the outcome of these negotiations. Meanwhile, I am discussing with the Corporation the financial arrangements required to implement the undertaking given by the then Minister of Aviation on 2nd August, 1966.

While welcoming the news that B.E.A. is at last in a position to place an order, may I ask for an assurance that no further delays will be caused by unnecessarily prolonging the negoiations on compensation?

I can give that assurance completely. We are as anxious as B.E.A. to speed matters up as fast as we can.

This is good news to those hon. Members who have been hoping for an early decision on this, the second half of the re-equipment programme of B.E.A. Will my right hon. Friend accept that it brings satisfaction in view of the constant statement, particularly by hon. Members opposite, denigrating a very fine aircraft which, in its Mark 1 and Mark 2 versions, has given excellent service to B.E.A?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's comments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the estimated deliveries of this aircraft are? Has he looked into the commercial prospects of selling it abroad? Such prospects must come into the deal with B.E.A.

As the hon. Gentleman will recall from the exchanges following my statement before Christmas, we have considered the export prospects for this aircraft and we think that, following devaluation, there are some prospects and possibly even more of import saving. But it would give a false impression to pretend that there was a huge export market for it. I should like notice of the point about delivery dates.

Did not the previous financial agreement to which my right hon. Friend has referred comprehend a decision that, if B.E.A. were compelled to buy an aircraft not of its own choice, it would be compensated operationally by the Government? Does that still stand?

Yes, Sir. We stand by the statement made by the then Minister of Aviation that the Government will take steps to ensure that B.E.A. can operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it acquires. That still stands.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government are now taking to encourage a further growth of Great Britain's overseas invisible earnings; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to help the balance of payments by encouraging Great Britain's invisible overseas earnings.

After consulting the Government, the Bank of England and the British National Export Council have established a permanent Committee on Invisible Exports. Its task will be to suggest and, where possible, implement measures to encourage invisible earnings in the light of the conclusions and recommendations of the Bland Report. The Government are still considering a number of recommendations in that report which relate to possible action by Government Departments.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that more publicity could usefully be given to the fact that Britain's invisible exports already amount to more than one-third of her total exports? With regard to his remarks about action to be taken by the Government, does not he agree that the most important recommendations, particularly with regard to the Selective Employment Tax, in the Bland Report are matters for Government action?

Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about publicity. The Bland Report has drawn to the attention of people who did not realise it before what a large contribution is made by our invisible exports. Today, the House will have noted that we have made an innovation in our publication of the monthly trade figures by including a reference to invisible exports. The question of the Selective Employment Tax appears to raise rather wider matters.

If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the City of London has an important part to play, would not he also agree that, if South Africa were to sell gold on the Paris market, this would be progress in the wrong direction?

I agree that the City of London has an important rôle to play in encouraging invisible exports. I have no comment to make on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

When listening to recommendations for increasing income from invisible exports, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of these activities in the City increase the sensitivity of this country to pressures on sterling? Will he, jointly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up a cost benefit analysis of the City's activities in this field?

I think that my hon. Friend is getting the matter out of perspective because, if he examines the figures on invisibles given in the Bland Report, he will find that the main contribution comes from sectors which are not relevant to the question he has put. What makes us vulnerable is not, as people often suppose, merely the position of sterling as a reserve currency but the fact that sterling is a major trading currency, and this is something we should not seek to bring to an end without the most careful consideration.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should not hide behind a new committee, however admirable, from taking decisions on the straightforward recommendations of the Bland Committee, such as those on the Selective Employment Tax, which are in the Government's power to deal with?

It is not a question of hiding behind a new committee, because it was the Bland Report itself which suggested that this Committee should be appointed. We are thus carrying out one of the Bland Report's major recommendations in setting the Committee up. The question of the Selective Employment Tax is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it raises all sorts of matters going far beyond the question of invisible exports.

Is not the real moral behind this question that Blackpool is the finest holiday and conference centre in the world?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now take steps to restrict imports of early potatoes in the interests of the economy.

No, Sir. There is no justification for imposing restrictions on trade that would damage our international trading relations and our exports.

Why do we have to import these early potatoes from these 10 different countries, with many of which we have an adverse trade balance? Saving imports is as valuable as increasing exports.

We are aware of the need for more import saving. We do not allow imports of main crop potatoes because this might affect those of our producers who are not in the early potato market.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the dumping of clocks in the United Kingdom; what were the terms of his reply; and if he will make a statement.

Complaints have been made to the Board of Trade and Ministry of Technology by the British Clock and Watch Manufacturers Association and by my hon. Friends, the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). They related to low-priced imports of alarm clocks from eastern area countries. We are in correspondence with the Association about the effect of these imports—which are limited by quotas—upon the home industry.

Have not these imports increased recently, in some cases by as much as 25 per cent.? That impression is going around with the belief that it will undermine severely the market in this country.

The import of cheap alarm clocks is controlled by quota and obviously we should not agree to a quota which we felt would be materially damaging to our own industry.

Although this importation is limited by quota, does not the hon. Lady agree that the quota allowed makes for a very large comparison with British production? A lot of jobs are at stake if this is allowed to go on.

We are sympathetic to the difficulties our industry is facing but some of them are due to the competition it is getting from low-priced clocks in export markets.

Would my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Board of Trade has gone back on its undertaking to bring in early legislation on this occasion since this is surely a question of anti-dumping legislation?

Under no circumstances whatsoever. We are bringing this legislation before the House very shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusion he has reached regarding the eligibility of aircraft for investment grants.

I see no reason at present to depart from the priorities laid down in the White Paper on investment incentives.

When ships and hovercraft both qualify for investment grants, why does the Minister persist in subsidising these two types of external transport at the expense of air transport? Is it not time that something was done to widen the British market for British aircraft, and to stop firms such as the British Steel Corporation from buying foreign aircraft?

I know nothing about the latter part of the hon. Member's Question. He will be aware of the reasons for excluding aircraft, which were given and fully discussed during the proceedings on the Industrial Development Bill, even though he finds them unacceptable. Since investment is being considered by the Edwards Committee, we ought to postpone the exchange, which I know the hon. Member would wish to have, until we see that Report.

If the right hon. Gentleman will not consider including aircraft in the investment grants scheme will he, in view of the increasing recognition of the value to business efficiency of air transport, whether by scheduled aircraft or executive-type aircraft, endeavour to find some way of encouraging investment in aircraft?

That is a question which I would always be prepared to study.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made following the further representations of the Association of International Accountants following its application for recognition under section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1948; and what further proposals he has to safeguard the position of students under the auspices of this body, whose position is prejudiced following the passage of the Companies Bill, 1967.

I received a deputation from the Association on 6th February and undertook to consider some further information which the Association said that it would supply. I have only very recently received that information, and I am now considering it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that he has not replied to the latter part of my Question, and that this "non-reply" miserably fails to reconcile itself with the remarks that he made in Committee on this matter? Is he aware that this matter will be pursued with determination until some element of justice enters the situation?

I have certainly not gone back on any undertaking that I gave in Committee. I asked the Association to provide me with further information on matters that arose in my discussions with it. The discussions took place on 6th February and I received this further information yesterday. I am not holding up anything.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate a survey of the capacity of industries suited to exporting or to manufacturing import substitutes, at present involved in defence and other Government contracts and in projects for statutory undertakers.

No special survey is necessary. The Government have already taken action, and next week will take more, to achieve the necessary shift of resources from home consumption, both public and private, to exports and import substitution. We are also in constant touch with industry, both directly and through the Economic Development Committees, in order to identify in advance any sectors where capacity limitation is likely to become a problem.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that there are considerable human and capital resources in Government enterprises which if fully utilised would result in releasing other private resources for exports and import substitution?

The difficulty is to identify the Government industries, Government factories and so on that my hon. Friend has in mind where there is such unused capacity which could be used for the purpose that he has put forward.

Is it not amazing that the Government have no special survey on import substitution? Is this not the most important subject facing the Government now, with imports reaching £500 million and above last year? Do not Questions Nos. 14 and 15 and this Question highlight the importance of this?

The Government have a tremendous amount of information provided for them by the National Economic Development Office and by the "Little Neddies" for industry. Full use is made of this information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions he intends to place upon aircraft movement at Luton Airport, in view of the introduction there of jet aircraft.

The hon. Member is, I understand, concerned with restrictions to reduce noise disturbance. In my view this is a matter for the airport owners, Luton Corporation, who are best placed to decide what restrictions are necessary.

If the owners do not take action, and appalling noise results, particularly noise at night, would it not be the duty of the Government to inter- fere, because people must be protected, as they have been protected at Heathrow?

I fully agree that people must be protected, but this is a corporation of elected representatives. They are right on the spot and I think that they will watch the interests of their own people.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he has approached the Luton Corporation in order to find out how many complaints it has had on this matter?

We have been in fairly regular touch with Luton Corporation about ways and means of cutting down noise. We gave advice about routing and so forth, but we have not been in touch on this specific point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to eliminate the difficulties being experienced in placing Government contracts with firms in development districts; and if he will make a statement.

The many forms of Government assistance to manufacturing industry in development areas should place firms in those areas in a strong position to compete for Government contracts. The Government also give preference to development area firms in awarding contracts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the placing of Government contracts can make drastic inroads into the unemployment figures in the development areas? Is he further aware that firms in these areas are finding it difficult, in dealing with Government Departments, to get them to change from their old habits and from the firms with whom they have previously dealt? Could she look into this matter more closely?

The whole point of the contract preference scheme is to assist firms in the development areas. They are clearly marked on purchasing lists. I will certainly look at the point raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that this step will begin to have very practical effects soon.

Following that very unsatisfactory reply, could the hon. Lady say quite specifically what is happening to the promises made by the Prime Minister, in our area? This is the question to which we want an answer. Is she aware that her answer to her hon. Friend failed to make sense at all?

I am very sorry if the hon. Lady found it difficult to understand. I should point out that her particular region is having some very active work put into it. There was an excellent debate in the House last Friday on this subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the recent big, mergers in industry, what steps he is taking to increase the power of the Monopolies Commission to control takeover bids and mergers.

I consider that my present powers, both to refer mergers to the Monopolies Commission and to act on their conclusions, are adequate.

Surely our present monopolies legislation does not protect the individual in this country nearly as much as the anti-trust laws in the United States? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern of many people in the country about the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals either in the State or in industry?

A lot of people with knowledge of the American situation would have grave doubts about what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question about how effective American anti-trust legislation is. On the second part, this is not fundamentally a problem of power. The Government have the power which they need. To put it crudely, both political parties and industry are slightly schizophrenic about this. On the one hand, we want mergers and rationalisation in many industries. On the other hand, we have our traditional obligation to protect the consumer.

Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to be in a position to announce the action he intends to take following the Report on manmade fibres by the Monopolies Commission?

I have already made a statement about this matter in which I said that we are setting up a tariff inquiry of the kind proposed by the Monopolies Commission. As to its other recommendations, we propose at once to start discussing the possible outcome with Courtaulds.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his first reply to this Question that he regards acceptance of some of the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on the manmade fibres theme as being outside his present powers and that he does not mind their being outside his powers? In other words, is he not following up the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that Courtaulds, in this case, should not carry its purchasing any further in certain sectors of the textile industry?

No; I am not conscious that what I said could have given rise to that interpretation. What I have said, and what I repeat, is that we are discussing the recommendations with Courtaulds, but in the light of the Government's declared policy to encourage rationalisation of the textile industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for imports during 1967 of cotton yarn and cloth and indicate what action he intends to take to reduce the increasing rate of imports from non-quota countries.

Retained imports in 1967 amounted to 39 million lb. of yarn and 574 million yards of cloth.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the basic problem of the textile industry is the increasing level of textile imports? Will he promise early action to close the sort of gap indicated in the Question?

What was remarkable about the increase in imports in 1967 was that the greater part did not come from so-called quota countries, the less developed countries; it came from the non-quota countries which largely have wage levels as high as ours. I have said again and again—and I must stand by this—that I shall wait for the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study before taking a long-term view on the future of imports.

Of the non-quota countries, Portugal does not have wage levels comparable to our own. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some information about how the agreement which his predecessor made is working?

The effect of what my predecessor did was that, after a very large increase in imports from Portugal in the first three months of last year, there was a very rapid fall. They are now running at a much lower level than they were at this time last year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new types of questionnaire have been issued by his Department to industry since October, 1964; and what is the total number of questions asked on these forms.

Forty-eight and 642 respectively.

Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that filling in forms is not the way to help our economy? Does he realise that I am putting a series of Questions to Government Departments to ascertain which one requires the greatest number of forms to be completed? The right hon. Gentleman's Department does not hold the record and win my wooden spoon; the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department is winning at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman is off the beam, as usual. The Board of Trade does not ask industry to supply a lot of useless information. For instance, 17 of the questionnaires to which I have referred are for investment grant applications. Instead of sending out one comprehensive form for all industries, we have one fairly simple form for each industry or group of similar industries. The same applies to the production statistics. Instead of having one enormous questionnaire, we have 16 fairly simple ones, each for a particular industry. This makes everybody's task much easier.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will intoduce legislation to define "small", "medium", "large", "giant", "family" and "king" as used on packets by detergent manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

Further legislation is not necessary as these packets are already required to be marked with their weight.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me information which I already knew. Would she realise that this "Alice in Wonderland" language is quite absurd? New heights have been reached in the past three weeks or so. "Half a pound for free" is not for free. Does the Board of Trade propose to allow this situation to continue?

Nobody sympathises more than I do with the housewife in trying to sort out the various detergents. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to know that the whole question of packaging in specified weights is still under discussion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusion he has reached as to whether certain classes of banks and discount companies should disclose more information in their accounts; whether he has completed his discussions on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

The study of the full accounts of the banks and discount houses over a period will take a considerable time and I cannot say when the review is likely to be completed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the matter has become much more urgent and important in recent days because of the proposed mergers and the whole climate of take-over bids which now exists in banks and discount houses as well as in industry? Is it not very unfair for shareholders and the investing public not to have the slightest idea of the contents of a bank's accounts?

I am not sure that the question of disclosure, which was in reference to how much should be disclosed overseas, is altered by the fact that the bank mergers are going on. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to rush this inquiry. If I remember aright, he agreed during the proceedings on the Companies Bill that we must fully and carefully examine what the consequences would be if full disclosure were made. We are now examining the situation.

Would my right hon. Friend assure us that the report of the inquiry will be published before the shareholders and the public have to make any decision about whether they agree to the price offered in the recent proposed bank merger?

That is a different question, and I should like notice of it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department made before introducing the investment grants scheme of the number of man hours likely to be spent by industry on applications for grants; and what subsequent investigations he has made on this point since the introduction of the scheme.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department made, before introducing the investment grants scheme, of the number of man hours likely to be spent by industry on applications for grants; and what subsequent investigations he has made on this point since the introduction of the scheme.

It was recognised that the nature of the scheme would cause some additional work. Precise information is not available but experience suggests that for most applicants the cost of claiming is not likely to be more than 1 per cent. of the value of grant received.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that my information is—and it seems to be fairly widespread—that there is a considerable amount of work involved in preparing these claims and that the old system of investment allowances involved no extra work whatsoever?

Yes, but I think that the extra work has resulted, not so much from the switch from investment allowances to investment grants, but from the discriminatory nature of investment grants. It is likely that if investment allowances had continued they, too, would have become discriminatory and, in that case, there would have been additional work.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is already an enormous load on business people in making returns for Government purposes? Is he aware that this is just one more ill-prepared scheme which makes life for business people so much more difficult than is necessary?

I do not agree. I should have thought that any properly conducted concern could ascertain this information from the normal running of its business. It is only a matter of extracting it and putting it on the simple form which we provide. But there is another factor. Many firms are finding, and are writing to tell us so, that receipt of the cash grant earlier than they received investment allowances is producing substantial savings on financing charges which more than offset the cost of preparing the returns.

As we have had to deal with both investment grants and investment allowances, would my right hon. Friend take it from me that the present system is more complicated? Nevertheless, has he not had representations from industry that it would prefer to continue with the present system rather than have any further changes made at this stage?

I concur with the view which my hon. Friend has expressed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the location of an aluminium smelter works in the Northern Region.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to announce the results of the Government's consideration of proposals for aluminium smelters; and what representations he has received from Great Britain's European Free Trade Association partners on this question.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the various smelter proposals. As regards the E.F.T.A. aspects, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 7th February.

Meanwhile, can my right hon. Friend confirm that aluminium companies have shown an interest in the location of a smelter in the North-East, and will he assure the House that this interest will receive every encouragement from the Government?

I can certainly assure the House that the claims of the North-East, as, indeed, the claims of all other regions, have been strongly pressed upon the Government.

Whilst hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will go ahead, may I ask him what recent representations he has had from E.F.T.A., and particularly Norway, who are very concerned about the effect of investment grants?

The position as to E.F.T.A. is that a special working party was set up to discuss the Norwegian complaint against us, and that working party has, I understand, nearly finished its deliberations now and will be reporting in the next few days.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that individual Members of Parliament from the Northern Region have made representations and application from an aluminium smelting company has been made for a particular site and that the northern group has been interested, and that we do not understand why the Press seems to have more information than we or this House?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The fact is that in a case like this where discussions have to go on with the companies concerned it is almost impossible, apparently, to avoid leaks of that character which I personally find extremely deplorable.

How long is it since the Government had the first approach on this matter, and can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication when a statement is likely to be made?

It has been a long and inevitably complicated business involving major questions of the best use of our national resources, of import policy, of regional policy, E.F.T.A. and the like. So the fact is that it has been since—I believe: I speak subject to correction—last summer that the matter has been under discussion. As to when a statement will be made, I hope in the near future, but I cannot be more definite than that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the advance factory in Sunderland which at present is unoccupied.

Every effort, including advertising in the national Press, is being made to find a tenant for this factory.

In view of our present unemployment difficulties, which I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, will she consider taking exceptional steps to advertise this vacancy and call attention to the excellence of this factory and the need to provide employment there?

We are very anxious to find tenants for all our advance factories. We sympathise with the situation in Sunderland, and are doing everything we can to help.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of investment grants that have been committed or paid to United Kingdom subsidiaries of foreign shipowners in respect of ships built elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, to date.

On the latest information available, I estimate that over the next few years approximately £36½ million will be paid in investmant grants to British shipping companies controlled by persons resident outside the United Kingdom, in respect of ships built abroad.

Can the Minister give any possible justification as to why British taxpayers should subsidise competitors of British shipowners to build ships in foreign shipyards, thereby robbing our own shipyards of orders?

Yes, because there has been no change of policy from that pursued by the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let me make this clear. The payment of investment grants to ships abroad is in line with the previous Government's policy. They paid 40 per cent. investment allowance on ships whether they were built in this country or built overseas, and to the same shipowners we pay 25 per cent. investment grant. The purpose of the grants, of course, is to help to encourage investment in new ships so that the British mercantile marine can be the leading shipping service in the world, properly equipped, and continuing to bring us in about £300 million a year to help our balance of payments. We cannot discriminate against ships built abroad—

Order. Answers are getting long.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer is not good enough for us on this side of the House, that to say we are following the practice of the previous Government in this context is not a satisfactory answer to the criticism now launched through this Question? Is he aware that so far as I am concerned—I am sure he is—as a persistent critic of the system of investment grants as compared with the old system of investment allowances I reiterate my contention that before investment allowances were given a profit had to be shown by the business—

Order. Questions must be reasonably brief. The Minister.

I quite agree with my hon. Friend's first observation, that just because a policy was pursued by the previous Government that is no reason for our following it. My right hon. Friend has already taken steps to ensure that the situation which has been described is not exploited to our disadvantage.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of investment grants that have been committed or paid to United Kingdom shipowners in respect of ships built elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, to date.

On the latest information available, I estimate that £29 million will be paid over the next few years in investment grants to United Kingdom controlled British shipping companies in respect of ships built outside the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister not rely upon traditional Conservatism to justify the expenditure of a further £29 million of taxpayers' money for subsidising our competing shipyards abroad?

Yes. I agree that we must see that more ships, whether for British or foreign shipowners, are built in British yards. As the House knows, we have taken steps in that direction through the new shipbuilding industry arrangements, but many of these so-called foreign businesses are in fact businesses, although foreign-controlled, which have been registered in this country, and they pay British tax in this country, and they bring us returns in this country, and they have got an honourable association with the British mercantile marine.

Has my right hon. Friend weighed the practice he has just told us about against the fact that at this particular moment we are threatened with the close down of a shipyard on Clyde-side and with putting thousands of men out of work? The same applies to Teesside. So we are losing exports. How do the two things balance out?

A number of the ships involved here which are being built abroad are ships which British shipyards did not, and perhaps could not, tender for because of their special design, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the amount of investment grant going to British ships being built in British yards is increasing and will go on increasing, and I think these figures will be reversed before long.

Is the Minister aware that the choice for many British shipowners is not at all whether to build in Britain or whether to build abroad, if they are to operate certain types of tonnage at an economic level, because in some circumstances these types of tonnage simply cannot be built in this country?

That was, I think, a point I made a moment or two ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now public knowledge that the financial support of the shipbuilding industry in this country through Government agencies compares favourably with that of the rest of the world, but will he understand that the modem shipyard on Tees-side which is now going to be closed involves unemployment for 3,000 people, and that those 3,000 people will not understand the reason for subsidies for creating work for shipyards abroad and not at home?

Yes, I think we are all aware of the distress caused by the decision to close the Furness shipyard, but I would doubt very much whether refusing to give investment grants to ships built abroad would have saved the Furness shipyard.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Government intends to implement the anti-dumping procedures agreed in the Kennedy Round negotiations.

I aim to secure amending legislation by the 1st July, 1968, when the Kennedy Round Agreement on antidumping enters into force for each party which has accepted it by that date. A Ways and Means Resolution was tabled on 8th March.