asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the result of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the Norwegian Government and the European Free Trade Association arising from the decision to site aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain;

(2) if Her Majesty's Government will publish a White Paper giving details of the negotiations and discussions arising from the decision to site aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to announce his decisions as to the location of the United Kingdom aluminium smelter works; and when approximately work will be started on approved projects.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce his plans for the construction of aluminium smelters in the United Kingdom.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the representations from members of the European Free Trade Association that the use of investment grants, as exemplified by possible aluminium smelters, are in breach of the European Free Trade Association Treaty.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the construction of aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain.

Negotiations are still in progress with the British Aluminium Company and the R.T.Z./ B.I.C.C. Consortium about their proposals to erect smelters at Invergordon and Holyhead respectively, drawing power from the public electricity supply system. Planning permission has been sought in both cases.

Alcan Aluminum (U.K.) Ltd. is now applying for planning permission for the construction of a smelter at Lynemouth, near Blyth, of which the first stage would have a capacity of 60,000 tons and which would have an ultimate designed capacity of 120,000 tons. This smelter would draw power from a power station to be erected by the company, using coal to be supplied by the National Coal Board under a long-term contract.

In considering the companies' proposals, the Government have taken careful account of representations made by other governments. There have been full exchanges of views with representatives of the Canadian Government; and, following the discussion at the E.F.T.A. Ministerial meeting, I had talks in Oslo last week with the Norwegian Minister of Commerce and Shipping. The outcome of these discussions was recorded in a communiqué which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The United States Government also have made known their views.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision will be hailed with delight by all of us in the North-East. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed so much to making the decision possible and I assure them that this opens up a new era in the industrial history of south-east Northumberland.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if it were not for the 25 per cent. investment grant, it would be economical to build smelters? If the answer is "No", does he not think that this is a subsidy which it ill befits the British people to have to pay?

No, Sir. The level of investment grant open to these companies—which is more than the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, since they are all in development areas— is exactly the same as the level of the investment grant open to any company that chooses to go into a development area, and, therefore, no question of subsidy arises.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for the delay in arriving at the decision on the smelter at Holyhead? This matter has been going on for some time, and I should have thought that a decision was now possible.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, the matter has been going on for some time. But the fact is that we are considering here the creation of an entirely new industry in Great Britain which involves the most intricate questions of regional policy, fuel policy and international policy. Rather than to go as rapidly as possible for what might be a premature decision, 1 think we were right to take the time we need in order to examine the matter with complete thoroughness.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what calculation he has made of the savings on the United Kingdom balance of payments from the contribution of these three plants?

We would judge that by the early 1970s it would be in the region of £30 million a year.

Can my right hon. Friend say when a decision will be announced for the other two sites which have been considered for smelters, particularly at Invergordon? Can he say what capacity those plants are intended to have?

Negotiations are going on very actively with the two other companies concerned and, of course, I want a decision as soon as we can reach one. We are working on plans for an initial capacity of 100,000 tons for each of the other two companies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from this side of the House that the pleasure which his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has expressed will be universally shared in the North-East of England? We welcome the choice of Lynemouth as a great addition to our hopes for the future of the North-East.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for further legislation affecting contributions by companies to political parties and groups.

I think that the provision in the Companies Act, 1967, which requires political contributions to be disclosed is sufficient.

I commend Lord Carrington on his success as a director of Hambros Bank, but are not the activities of such companies obtaining money by false pretences, because shareholders have no chance of opting out of such contributions, whereas trade unionists are able to opt out of the levy?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind my hon. Friend's Question. However, to enable shareholders to contract out would involve companies in difficulties. There is one way of contracting out, and that is to sell.

Is not the brief answer for the Government to get a Prime Minister better than Lord North?

I understand that companies may make contributions if the contributions can reasonably be regarded as benefiting the company. A board which believes that the economy or the company will benefit from the return of a Conservative Government is allowing optimism to triumph over experience.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong that shareholders should be forced to make this compulsory levy to the policies of the party opposite, very often by directors who are not appointed on merit but through the "old boy network"? Will he not propose an Amendment to the Companies Act to make contributions to political parties conditional upon votes of the shareholders or special resolutions at annual meetings of the companies concerned?

As I say, there is a way in which shareholders can contract out, and that is to sell. No doubt in deciding whether to sell, they will take account of the record of the company concerned.

Has the hon. Gentleman any further plans, because existing legislation is merely prompting many companies not only to double but to treble their contributions? I think that we ought to be a little cautious about this matter.

As I have indicated, I think that the object, which has been achieved, to make shareholders and the public aware of the activities of these companies, is adequate.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek a revision of Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention to prevent member countries of the European Free Trade Association from levying import duties on motor vehicles imported from other member countries, in contravention of the principles of the European Free Trade Association.

Under Article 6 of the E.F.T.A. Convention, Member States are free to apply revenue duties to goods imported from other Member States provided that there is no protective element in such duties. No revision of this Article is at present contemplated. But the current programme of work for E.F.T.A., adopted by Ministers at their meeting in London on 9th-10th May, provides for a review of the extent to which revenue duties could be reduced or eliminated on trade within E.F.T.A.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these revenue duties, which are up to 30 per cent. in some instances, are import duties, and is this not particularly detrimental to the British and Swedish motor car industries and, for that matter, the whole of E.F.T.A.?

My hon. Friend will be aware that, more than once, we have made representations about these revenue duties, particularly as they affect motor vehicles. Nevertheless, when he refers to a 30 per cent. level, those countries in E.F.T.A. which still have that are all due to reduce it substantially during the course of 1968.

How can we expect sympathy from the members of E.F.T.A. over this matter when we ourselves have resorted to national protectionism for aluminium smelters?

I asked them about Norwegian fish recently, because I have a strong constituency interest in fish. However, I do not think that anyone who considers our trading relations with E.F.T.A. as a whole can say that, compared with the other countries in E.F.T.A., this country has pursued a protectionist policy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what new instructions he intends to issue following the recent decision of the High Court in the case of British Oxygen Company versus Board of Trade; and when he expects to be able to devise the booklet "Investment Grants", published by his Department in the light of the decision in that case.

I am considering with my legal advisers the question of an appeal against the decision of the High Court in this case.

Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, since this decision, the lack of action is causing the investment grant system to get into even more disarray. When will he make up his mind about it?

That will depend on the upshot of any appeal, if we start one.

While totally disagreeing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and accepting that the investment grant scheme is better than the old investment allowance scheme, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will nevertheless consider holding meetings between Board of Trade officials and accountants who have to deal with the problems in practice, so that there can be some improvement in the workings of the scheme?

One of the objects of introducing the de minimis rule, which was fully announced when the investment grant scheme was under discussion, was to reduce administrative difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman must announce very soon whether this judgment is to be appealed against or not. Alternatively, he must begin to implement the scheme in accordance with the judgment. Will he make up his mind soon?

We will make up our mind soon whether we are to appeal, and obviously a decision will be taken in the light of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost of abandoning the £25 minimum value rule for investment grants in a full year.

Information on which to make a reliable estimate is not available.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is not only acting illegally in this matter since the High Court judgment, but that it is open to very serious objection to exclude certain people just because their investments are small in total in units? Will he therefore reconsider this policy and say when he will be able to announce a decision?

It was made perfectly clear when the investment grant scheme was introduced that there would be a de minimis rule. Whether what we are doing is illegal will depend on the upshot of further proceedings in the courts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding industrial development in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region will not impose any limitations of space on companies endeavouring to expand in that area.

I shall continue to give sympathetic consideration to applications for industrial development certificates for expansion of local firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region and for suitable new projects. Only one industrial development certificate has been refused in the region since the beginning of 1965.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask whether he would accept that Yorkshire and Humberside has a tremendous potential which must not be frustrated, and that nothing should be done at this time to weaken the potential development of the region?

I accept that the region has a tremendous potential, but I must point out that it has an unemployment figure of only 2·6 per cent., which is substantially lower than that in most development areas. Therefore, while we recognise its potential, we think that it would be quite wrong, in advance of the Hunt Committee's Report, to take special measures designed to help this region alone.

While we are very happy about the flexible I.D.C. policy as it affects existing firms, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the problem of new firms entering the area with a view to encouraging them, especially in those parts where we have large pockets of male unemployment?

We try to consider the problems of new firms as sympathetically as possible and invariably approve new projects, provided that they cannot go to a development area. Generally, we operate the I.D.C. policy in as flexible a manner as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the district of Thorne in my constituency, where unemployment is over 11 per cent., recently there was a refusal by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to allow planning permission for the extension of an existing local factory? Is he satisfied that there is complete liaison between the Board of Trade and the other Ministeries involved?

If I may, I should like to look into the example that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to take steps to stimulate and encourage the prosperity and growth of small businesses in accordance with the undertaking given to the House on 10th February, 1967.

My right hon. Friend hopes next month to launch a pilot scheme to assist small businesses to employ consultants. The Government have already announced a number of other measures which will help small firms including new or increased grants to the British Productivity Council, the British Institute of Management and the Centre for Interfirm Comparison.

Does the Minister recollect that on 10th February last year he accepted my Motion which urged him to take urgent and positive steps to encourage the prosperity and growth of this section of the business community? No action has been taken. These firms do not want subsidies; they want revision of the taxation system, particularly of the provisions in the Companies Act. Would the hon. Gentleman consider setting up a small business development bureau, possibly before the return of a Conservative Government, which will not be long delayed?

The assurance to which the hon. Member refers was given by my predecessor. The hon. Member is quite wrong in stating that nothing has happened since. On the contrary, I have indicated a series of things which have happened since which could be added to. As to the point about setting up a small business administration, the idea proposed by the small "Neddy" group which is studying small businesses will be considered.

Leaving aside the crude point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), can my hon. Friend say if further action has been taken to help small firms with joint representations overseas? Does he agree that if there were this help to small businesses it would not only help exports but would encourage such firms to overcome export difficulties?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a series of schemes which help co-operative ventures in which small firms can take part.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the sort of measures he has referred to are merely minor palliatives in the face of problems caused for small firms by Government taxation changes and that this is where help is needed?

I do not accept that they are small palliatives. On the contrary, they can be of considerable advantage to small firms and many which have taken advantage of the many facilities the Government offer have greatly benefited so far. One of the troubles is that too few of these firms take advantage of the facilities offered.

Is not this another example of the Government's practice of clobbering firms with one hand and giving subsidies and palliatives with the other? Is it not time we got away from this pattern and let these firms stand on their own feet as they wish to do?

They are not clobbered. They are offered assistance which can be of great value. I should have thought that hon. Members would be much better engaged in encouraging such firms to make use of the facilities which are available. These facilities are extensive.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his considerations on the question of whether plant and machinery installed to fillet or otherwise process fish qualify for grant in accordance with regulations made under the Industrial Development Act, 1966; and if he will make a statement.

I am sorry that consideration of this subject is still incomplete. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

That is a quite unacceptable Answer. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this has been under consideration since last autumn? Is this the way in which he is trying to encourage industry?

As I said, I am sorry that this has taken a long time to decide. It is a difficult and marginal case. We are trying to look at it as favourably as possible. I think the decision will be rapidly available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many limited liability companies have surrendered that status in each of the past two years other than those which have been liquidated.

Section 43 of the Companies Act, 1967, under which limited companies may be re-registered as unlimited, came into force only on the 27th October, 1967. From then until the 28th May, 1968, 1,355 companies have reregistered as unlimited.

Substantial though that figure is, does the Minister of State accept that the real damage is done in respect of companies which never come into existence because of the new disadvantages under which small companies now have to labour? Will he try to make an estimate of that and therefore revise the tax laws and company laws which are proving so damaging?

There is no evidence at all of any such damage. When we compare the figure of 1,355 with the probable estimate of 375,000 exempt private companies before the Act came into force, there is no evidence here of significant damage.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider a scheme for import saving designed to assist small firms in this country to offer home-manufactured substitutes for imported goods.

There are, of course, many existing measures of Government encouragement and support for competitive domestic production and devaluation has greatly strengthened the ability of firms large and small to compete against imports. But if the hon. Member has some specific proposal in mind, I shall be glad to consider it.

Would the Minister of State undertake to receive a deputation from the Small Businesses Association, which has some valuable ideas which might be of some help in this context?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimates have been made by his Department as to the volume and value of imports of primary products during the second half of 1968;

(2) what estimates have been made by his Department as to the volume and value of imports of manufactures during the second half of 1968.

A forecast of the value of imports of goods and services, in the second half of 1968 was given in Part HI of the Financial Statement. I have nothing to add to this.

Is that not rather a surprising Answer in view of the trend of imports in recent months and weeks, which suggests that that forecast is not going to prove right? Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the recommendation of the National Institute that machinery should be set up for import controls? What is the Government's policy on that?

On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I think it still early to say exactly what the trend of imports will be over the year as a whole, although he is quite right in saying that they are still running at a disturbingly high level. On the second part of the question—the proposal of the National Institute—while, of course, all Governments must be ready for any contingencies at all times, the Government and I are strongly opposed to the idea of import controls, first because they would take a long time to have an effect and, secondly, because they would do damage to our international trading position and would invite retaliation.

Would not the volume of imports be seen in better perspective if the Government said that the previous suggestion that we would have a £500 million surplus on balance of payments next year was not sacrosanct and that perhaps about £300 million on a rising trend would be more than satisfactory?

I do not think it is a question of being sacrosanct in that way. If we achieved a surplus of £300 million that also would be a not unsatisfactory outcome. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have given strong reasons for saying that £500 million surplus next year would be highly desirable.

As there were two forecasts for exports next year, what were the figures relating to them for imports of raw materials?

Does the hon. Member mean exports or imports? The Question was about imports.

Presumably imports are used in exports.

Yes, some of them. I did not follow the hon. Member's question. The; Question I was asked related to forecasts for imports for the second half of next year. I understood the hon. Member to be asking a quite different question about exports.

While accepting my right hon. Friend's reasons for opposing im- port controls at this stage, may I ask him to consider making an immediate announcement that whatever contingency planning is undertaken on this subject the quotas which might one day be imposed would take account of the level of imports during preceding months?

No, Sir. I do not propose to make any such announcement. It would be most unwise to do so. Any announcement of this kind would give people the impression, wrongly, that we were going to introduce restrictions and would have the one single effect of increasing the volume of forestalling imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to consult representatives of smaller businesses in order that their views may be taken into account in framing any future legislation affecting the operation of companies.

We intend to consult the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the proposals for companies legislation which we hope to make later in this Parliament and we are ready to consider the views of any other body representative of smaller businesses.

Is the Minister aware that the views of the C.B.I., which he proposes to consult on the question of small businesses, are often directly in conflict with those of the Small Businesses Association, particularly in the field of monopoly, mergers and restrictive practices, where I consider that the C.B.I. has very wrong views which are directly contrary to the interests of competition in small business?

I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I said in my Answer that I was prepared to receive representations from other bodies representing small businesses, and I have just offered to receive a delegation on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).

If my hon. Friend is now giving a clear indication of further companies legislation, will he also consider including provisions for industrial democracy, such as were hinted at during the passage of the last Companies Act?

That takes the Question very much wider. It was indicated during the passage of the last Companies Act that the future legislation which we would introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament would be concerned with implementing the remainder of the Jenkins Report.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many requests he has had from firms for exemption from the requirements of the Companies Act 1967 to disclose information regarding matters not previously required to be disclosed by exempt private companies.

Forty two such applications have been received from former exempt private companies.

These are early days for the working of the 1967 Act. Would the Minister confirm that all experience on disclosure gleaned between now and the promised new Act, which we are told is to be introduced before the end of this Parliament will be looked at with an open mind when the new legislation is being prepared?

We are watching what happens as a result of the provisions on disclosure in the 1967 Companies Act. But none of the figures available to us justify any of the fears about disclosure expressed on the benches opposite.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the actual and potential performance of a firm in the export and technological fields as qualifications to be taken into account when reviewing applications for industrial development certificates.

These factors are already taken into account in considering applications for industrial development certificates.

Does the hon. Lady agree that in these important fields, where it is essential to get the maximum expansion, there should be no discouragement to such firms? In particular, it is very often a severe discouragement if the necessity to move is part of the price they must pay for expansion.

Hon. Members opposite who represent development areas are very anxious to have advance factories and to have employment created in those areas. The I.D.C. policy is working with that aim in mind. This is something we must continue to do very actively.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a general feeling in the country at large that the Board of Trade applies quite rigorously the rather primitive yardstick of relative unemployment figures, and that in areas such as the Potteries, where the unemployment figure is admittedly low, the potential export of the pottery industry is to some extent being frustrated? As it is now 60 per cent. of output, it should be encouraged.

I cannot accept that. The Board of Trade operates a very flexible I.D.C. policy and takes account of those pockets of higher unemployment in areas where we should normally not be flexible in our policies. It is important for the development areas particularly that we continue to keep tight control.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are followed by his Department in determining the location in which advance factories are to be built; and whether the regional economic planning councils concerned are consulted.

The location of advance factories in individual areas is determined by a number of considerations which include the present and expected employment position, the existence of other factory space, the availability of suitable land for further building, and the possibility of attracting occupiers when the factories are completed. Consultations take place with other Government Departments which, like the Board of Trade, are also members of the appropriate economic planning board. Economic planning councils are concerned with the broad strategy of employment in their areas and not with the siting of individual factories.

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the criteria she has given. Is she aware that there is considerable concern that there is insufficient research on the siting of advance factories according to need, and it is not time, so long after 1964, that economic planning councils were suggesting themselves as something more than "propaganda fronts"?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. Very careful account is taken of the situation in an area before we place an advance factory there, because we are anxious to get a tenant and to get a growth point working.

Will the hon. Lady consider consulting her right hon. Friend with a view to altering the arrangements so that private developers would also be able to build advance factories if so minded? At present they cannot do so because it is not possible to build them privately without an I.D.C. before one starts.

One accepts that the same rules do not apply to private developers. In some development areas private developers are going ahead with industrial estates quite successfully.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of finance from overseas to be provided by major United States film companies for film production in the United Kingdom in 1967 and 1968.

I cannot give a precise estimate but the amounts in 1965 and 1966 were approximately £15 million and £18 million respectively and there is no evidence to suggest a recent reversal of this trend.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there is some concern in the indus- try that American restrictions may lead to a cut-back of American investment in films produced in this country? Would not she agree that this is just the time when the Government should make a statement that they are committed to some form of assistance to the National Film Finance Corporation to help British finance for the industry?

I am aware of the concern in the industry about American investment, but we are examining the whole question of films legislation and it would be unfortunate to prejudge the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the overseas earnings of films produced by companies other than the major United States film companies was attributable to films financed with the assistance of the National Film Finance Corporation in 1965 and 1966.

I regret that this precise information is not available. In 1965 and 1966, however, the National Film Finance Corporation made loans of £2,100,000 for 36 films with an aggregate cost of £6,100,000 and overseas earnings to date of £2,700,000.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that there is considerable achievement by films of this kind, which earn foreign exchange? If she cannot make a commitment now about the National Film Finance Corporation, can she at least say that the new legislation will provide some means of channelling British investment into films in this country?

We are anxious to do all we can to assist the industry, but, for obvious reasons, it would be premature to give a commitment now. The Corporation has been and is doing an excellent job and I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to it.

Does not the importance of keeping to the forefront of film production because of world potential in terms of foreign earnings mean that we should give high priority to helping the industry, at this time in particular?

We are naturally concerned that British films should continue to be as successful as they are at present in terms of world trade. They also provide an excellent shop window for our goods.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give consideration to recommencing the weekly spot checks on department store sales to enable a more accurate and up-to-date analysis of spending behaviour to be made.

I do not propose to reinstate the weekly inquiry on sales of department stores, but instead to obtain regular reports from certain large retail groups covering all goods except food.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have had enough hard lessons in the last 12 months in the management of the economy not to recognise that many of the problems and complexities of consumer spending have created real problems in getting the information we want, and that his reply will only partially answer the needs and difficulties we are facing? Will he not go into detail as to whether this proposal might be possible in future?

I would not dissent from my hon. Friend's opening remark, but nevertheless the inquiry I have announced will certainly give us up-to-date information on a sample basis of how the trend of retail sales is going.

Can my right hon. Friend give us the most recent figures he has?

The figures for April suggest that the consumer boom is over. They show that, as between March and April, there was a marked fall of sales and that, in April, retail sales as a whole were no higher than in the three months August to October, 1967.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to assist the hotel industry to provide adequate accommodation for tourists in Great Britain, in view of the estimates of demand from 1970 onwards.

I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper (Cmnd. 3633) which my right hon. Friend presented to the House on 21st May.

While the Government appear at last to be waking up to the potentiality of the tourist industry as a foreign exchange earner, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that the help now proposed is trivial compared with the withdrawal of investment allowances and the imposition of the S.E.T., which together are costing the hotel industry about £40 million a year?

The help proposed now is remarkable in the prevailing conditions and has been generally welcomed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Government measures to assist the industry are widely welcomed, particularly in the tourist areas? But could he not go still further to help the industry by trying to extend the tourist season so that we use our resources to a much greater extent in the early and late season than at present?

We shall do what we can in that respect. This was one of the reasons for the change in the Bank Holidays. But a great deal can be done by the tourist areas themselves to extend their own seasons, and I would welcome that.

In view of the shortage of hotel beds, and since the "Little Neddy" Report said that action by the Government was urgent, is it not unfortunate that the industry must wait until the next Session for legislation?

Because of the publication of the White Paper, the industry knows what assistance will be available and can go ahead with making plans on that basis even before the legislation.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the hotel industry is greatly handicapped by discrimination in the application of the S.E.T.? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to alleviating the burdens of the industry in that respect?

The whole question of the effect of the S.E.T. is being examined now. Some hotels are benefiting from discrimination in the application of the S.E.T.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effects of the S.E.T. are not being examined now because the Government's Money Resolution on the Finance Bill is precluding any effective debate on the subject?

Although the S.E.T. is not my direct responsibility, the fact is that we are examining its effect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the recommendations of the Bland Report on Britain's Invisible Earnings have been implemented by the Government.

I have already given the House details of some of the steps taken since the publication of the Bland Report, such as the references to invisible earnings in the presentation of the monthly trade figures, the help to the hotel industry to increase tourist earnings and the creation of the new permanent Committee on Invisible Exports.

The main task of this new Committee, on which my Department, the Treasury and the Bank of England are represented, 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.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather disappointing that so little has been done at this stage as a result of the Bland Report? In particular, can he give urgency to the monthly or quarterly publication of invisible earnings, as these figures would possibly help to dissipate the gloom of our monthly trade figures?

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's opening remark. A good deal has been done since the Report came out. We now include a reference to the invisible account in the monthly trade figures and, of course, the quarterly figures for invisible accounts are regularly published. I am not clear that there is anything more we can do, but if the hon. Gentleman has any suggestion to make I will gladly consider it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Government persist in giving help of one sort or another to manufacturing industry and discriminating against those firms which contribute to invisible earnings, nothing the Government do or say about this will carry conviction?

What will carry conviction, if not with the hon. Gentleman at any rate with objective observers, is that the first quarter's figures for invisible accounts will show a very marked increase.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for the imports of yarn, cloth and made-up textiles for the first quarter of this year; and how these compare with the same period in the previous five years, making allowances for the effects of devaluation.

As the Answer contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Because a number of other factors have influenced the level of imports, it is not practicable to isolate the effects of devaluation.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I am concerned about the bunching of imports, which causes problems for particular sections of the industry? Will he consider taking steps to ensure an even spread of imports over the whole year?

I take my hon. Friend's point. We have considered it, but there are great difficulties.

Will the Minister accept that the fact that many small but efficient textile firms are closing down indicates that the level of imports under the quota is far too high? Can he say when he will be able to make a statement with regard to the quota position after 1970?

We shall be in a better position to make decisions on that when we get the report on productivity from the Textile Council.

Will my hon. Friend recommend to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor the imposition of revenue-raising import duties on Portuguese textiles, similar to those which they impose on our motor cars?

I would certainly be prepared to pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend, but I would have thought that he would be in trouble in this direction with our international agreements.

Can the Minister of State say, without going into the figures, whether devaluation has had a beneficial effect both on import and export figures compared with this time last year?

Not so far, partly because of the very large restocking which has been taking place.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a grant to the Design Centre for the installation of an air-conditioning plant there.

The Design Centre already has an air-conditioning plant and part of the grant-in-aid has recently been spent on its maintenance. Possitde improvements and their cost are being discussed in the first instance be-

Can the Minister say, on a small practical point, why the quotas cannot be on a quarterly basis?

I understand that there are considerable difficulties with the trade. We have been having discussions with it for some time and the countries concerned, to see whether we can get round this. Perhaps we may be able to.

Can my hon. Friend say when we can expect the report from the Textile Council?

Very soon, I hope—in the autumn. We have been having great difficulty with the weaving section of the industry, many parts of which have not so far filled in the questionnaire giving necessary details. We propose to twist their arms a bit.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the installation of a modern air-conditioning plant in the building would be a first-class advertisement for British design and engineering?

I am sure that it would. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that although in the previous five years less than £200 was spent on air conditioning, during 1961 to 1963 a cooling tower and seven cooling units were installed at a cost of £5,600.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance has been given by his Department to the North-East Development Council in carrying out its policy of attracting industry from the Yorkshire and Humberside Region to the North-East.

The North-East Development Council aims to attract industry into the North-East from many parts of Britain and from overseas. My regional office in Newcastle co-operates with the Council in bringing the merits of the area to the notice of firms seeking locations in development areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement is appreciated? Will he look favourably at any efforts that may be made in Yorkshire and Humberside or any part of the region, to attract industry, particularly to bring about more diversification?

I have already made it clear that while I am strongly in favour of the North-East Development Council generally making propaganda for its area, I deprecate any attempt at competition between that development area on the one hand and parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside area on the other. This latter area has difficulties of its own.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that despite Government disapproval the North-East Development Council has indicated to at least one Halifax firm that it intends to continue its advertising campaign to attract industry away from the West Riding?

I thought that we had made our views fairly clear on that point. If my hon. Friend will send me details I will be glad to look at them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of rabbits have been imported from China to date in 1968; and what percentage increase this represents on the same periods in 1966 and 1967.

Imports of rabbit meat from China were 1,135 tons in January-April, 1968. This was the same as in January-April, 1966 and 1 per cent. less than in the same period of 1967.

Could the Minister tell us why we have to import so much? Are we that pushed? Would the hon. Lady please recognise that the import of this weight of rabbits from abroad affects the whole market and such revenue producers as the Welsh Marches Rabbit Producers' Society?

This is a serious question. We have told the industry that if it can produce prima facie evidence of dumping, and material injury we would be prepared to examine it.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that all these rabbits are dead? Is there any danger of them breeding like Chinamen?

Is it not a fact that these Red rabbits are dearer than ordinary British chicken? What are they to be used for?

Speaking as a housewife, if anyone chooses to buy something more expensive than chicken, I assume that it is because they wish to eat rabbit.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which completed advance factories are at present empty; and for how long each has been unoccupied.

I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Lady aware that all the information we have had recently shows that a number of these factories are still lying empty? Could she give some idea as to why it is proving impossible to build these factories quickly and provide more jobs?

It would be foolish to pretend that we are not disturbed by the number of empty advance factories— obviously we are. We are anxious to provide employment. That is why we built the factories. I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to know that there has been a sharp increase in the numbers allocated in the last quarter. The figure was four in the fourth quarter of 1967, and it has now gone up to 10 for the first quarter of 1968. We believe that at long last we are getting somewhere.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us are delighted that such a large number of advance factories have been allocated to Scotland— 34 out of 94? Will she continue to look after the needs of Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We certainly intend to keep up, not just the allocation of advance factories, but a rolling programme to try to deal with the employment situation in Scotland.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, as interests, profits and dividends in 1966 earned this country a net surplus of £371 million, he will take steps to ensure that the growth in income from our overseas investments is fully maintained by allowing free movement of British capital into overseas investment.

I am very conscious of the benefits which earnings from interest, profits and dividends bring to the balance of payments on current account, but as my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget speech, we must maintain the measures we have taken to minimise the burden of outward investment on the balance of payments capital account.

Is the Minister aware that it is commonplace for American firms which have invested money in this country to take out, in profits and royalties, 100 per cent. per annum? Is it really necessary that British enterprise should be deprived of corresponding opportunities overseas?

Under present circumstances it is necessary. This is always a question of trying to find the right balance between the individual long-term benefits to be gained from overseas investments on the one hand, and on the other hand the burden that that places in the short term on the capital part of the balance of payments programme. In our present situation it seems absolutely right not to cut it down to zero, which we have not done, but to exercise a certain restraint.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, on both sides of the Gangway, who are increasingly concerned about the institutional changes in the City which are increasing the pressures on sterling? Would he particularly look at the whole question of the export of capital to the sterling area, and leakages taking place in the non-sterling area?

The question of exchange control is for the Chancellor. I can tell my hon. Friend that in 1967, for the first time for many years, the long-term capital account was actually in balance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the growth of this valuable help to the balance of payments in future is being very much handicapped by the discriminatory provisions of the so-called voluntary arrangement, which largely prevents investment in Australia, where investment possibilities are better than anywhere in the world?

They have not altogether prevented investment in Australia, as one can see from recent figures. If one has control or restraint of this kind, it seems better that it should be discriminatory.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even £370 million may be a high price to pay for the wild speculative capital movements that have taken place recently and damaged sterling?

The question of speculative movements is an extremely serious one. But it is not the same as the matter of long-term capital investment overseas, to which the Question relates.

Order. Mr. Crosland to answer Question No. 65.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost since devaluation of extending each of the two runways, respectively, of Aldergrove Airport in County Antrim; and if he will start preliminary work to extend the runways in order to make them suitable for transatlantic jet traffic.

The cost of bringing the main runway to a standard comparable with that, say, at Prestwick would be about £2 million. An extension to this runway is under consideration. We cannot foresee any need at present to extend the secondary runway and no estimate is therefore available.