asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the system of pro forma selling by which certain firms send out invoices offering discounts for entries in forthcoming directories, such entries never having been ordered; if he is satisfied that the public is sufficiently protected from such practices; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of the regrettable practice to which my hon. Friend refers, but I think it is for the recipients to protect themselves by checking before payment that they have not contracted for any such directory entries.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this practice is nothing more than a squalid confidence trick? Does she not agree also that there is something wrong when apparently a firm can imply that an order has been placed when it has not been placed, when it can raise thousands of £s by this implication, and when it can also imply that a directory is to be published when it is not? Does not she think that the law needs to be strengthened?

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend that it is very reprehensible to send out pro forma invoices that look so like genuine bills that people are sometimes misled. I hope that any firm that receives any form like this will take the opportunity to complain and that people will not be taken in by this practice, which seems to me, although it is not illegal, to be thoroughly wrong.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the cotton textile industry, and in particular the economic and trade prospects for the industry in Lancashire in the coming year.

Production of yarn and cloth has risen by 7½ per cent. and 5½ per cent., respectively, compared with the third quarter of last year. Order books have also lengthened considerably, to an average of 23 weeks production in the case of spinners and 17 weeks in the case of weavers. While it is dangerous to prophesy in a trade which is subject to cyclical fluctuation, nevertheless, given the state of order books and the improved competitiveness of the industry as a result of devaluation, the outlook looks encouraging.

My right hon. Friend's words are very encouraging, particularly in view of the gloomy forecasts which were made in many quarters, but does he not agree that he could give further encouragement to Lancashire by considering the import quotas again?

I certainly think that the general position is a great deal more encouraging than it was this time last year, for example, when many very gloomy forecasts were being made. As to any further Government action or further Government policy decisions, I have said again and again, and I must stick to this, that I do not propose to take any new policy decisions affecting the industry until I have had the result of the productivity study, which I still hope to have by the end of the year.

When will the Textile Council report on its productivity study, because the absence of this report has been a reason for postponing decisions for a long time? Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that time is beginning to run out in the matter of quota arrangements for imports? When does he propose to start renegotiating these quotas, because he will be up against the buffers of time quite soon?

I am well aware of the timetable as regards quotas. We have not run out of time yet, but it is right that we should watch the timetable very carefully. I shall not take any decision on that until the Textile Council Productivity Study has been completed; and that, I hope, will be by the end of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that we have been holding up decisions for a long time because we have been waiting for these reports? Can he give us an indication of when we shall get both the Hunt Report and the Textile Council's Report, and then perhaps some decision will be taken?

I hope to have the Textile Council's Report by the end of the year. I believe that we are expecting the Hunt Report in the very early part of next year.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that mergers are inevitable in face of whatever kind of report he gets? In these circumstances, will he encourage the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to look into some of the possibilities: in Lancashire, without the aid of its Chairman, for reasons which both sides of the House will know, namely, that he has a major interest in the textile industry? That should not neutralise the efforts of the I.R.C. to look into the possibilities there are.

The Chairman of the I.R.C. has made a considerable contribution to mergers in the textile industry, as my hon. Friend knows. On the more general question of the I.R.C., I agree with my hon. Friend that we certainly have not seen the last of mergers in this industry. We shall see more of them, but I would not like to call in the aid of the I.R.C. until I see what the productivity study says, although it is one of of a number of possible courses of action after we have that study.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what grants and allowances for plant, machinery and equipment he will make available to the private enterprise operator of a railway line used for the transport of passengers and freight following its abandonment by British Railways within a development district.

No financial assistance would be available from the Board of Trade under either the Industrial Development Act or the Local Employment Acts.

I understand the difficulty of giving a better Answer to my Question, but will the hon. Lady say whether her Department has made an assessment of the value of the Waverley line to the future development of trade and industry in the Borders of Scotland, and, if so, what advice it has given to the Minister of Transport?

The Board of Trade has an active interest in the development of industry in the Borders. Obviously, we take into account the effect which factors such as railway closures would have. There has been a decline in the usage of the line, although I do not underestimate the difficulties, sometimes psychological, which people feel they will face if railway lines close. However, we believe that what will give real help to industrialists in this area will be alternative forms of transport and, in many instances, improvement of roads.

Order. Questions and Answers are becoming longer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is his policy to give preference to industries which contribute to exports rather than those which make a similar contribution to import saving.

The Government's policy is to encourage and assist all industries to make the best contribution they can both in export markets and in competition with imports at home.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 12th June one of his senior officials came to the Select Committee on Agriculture and, in reply to Question No. 918, said specifically that his Department's policy was to give preference to industries involved in exporting rather than those involved in import saving? Is that not an extraordinary statement of policy?

I confess that I was not aware of the answer to Question No. 918 on that occasion. However, whatever he said, my view is that in the short run we should give encouragement to both export promotion and import saving. But I agree with whoever gave the answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that, taking the longer view, export promotion is the more valuable, partly because the world market is larger than the domestic market, partly because world trade in manufactures is growing faster than the British national income is growing, and partly because the exporting industries are typically industries with a considerable reserve of productivity increase whose expansion can significantly affect the rate of growth.

As balance of payments considerations are of highest importance at least for the next three years, does not my right hon. Friend agree that import savings could make an immediate and much faster contribution than exports since we have to give such long credit terms?

I said that, in the immediate outlook, we ought to support both equally. As regards import saving, the Government have been extremely active, for example, in relation to the aluminium smelters, the agricultural expansion programme, the encourage- ment. of North Sea gas production and in many other ways.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the estimated deficit in the United Kingdom overseas trade during 12 months ended 31st October, 1968; what proposals he now has to make for improving the terms of trade by increasing exports and by diminishing imports by home production to substitute for imports, respectively; and whether he will make a statement.

Figures of the United Kingdom's trade up to 31st October are not yet available. The Government are pursuing, and will continue to pursue, a wide range of measures designed to improve the trade balance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while endorsing the view that exports have performed creditably since devaluation, express renewed anxiety about the level of imports; and is not this largely due to the total failure of the Government's policy of import substitution in the context of British agriculture?

I listened with pleasure to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday. I profoundly regret that I missed the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I heard the moving tribute paid to it by the Leader of the House, and I am sure that it was very good. On the point of substance about imports, as we have made clear again and again imports are running at a higher level than we should like. There are a variety of reasons for this. As regards the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the agricultural expansion programme, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make a statement to the House on the subject in the very near future.

Order. We have many Questions on the Order Paper.

How does the President of the Board of Trade reconcile the bullish tone of the Chancellor yesterday with his own much more cautious assessment when he spoke to the International Chamber of Commerce?

No doubt there are differences of temperament here, as there are, I imagine, everywhere else. On the substance of the matter, as I recollect my right hon. Friend's speech and my own speech, we were in complete harmony.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give the percentage increase in the volume of imports and exports, respectively, between the third quarter of 1968 and the average for the second and third quarters of last year before devaluation;

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the volume of United Kingdom imports increased by 11 per cent. and of exports by 14 per cent.; the increases in value were 26 and 25 per cent., respectively.

Is not the significant fact revealed by those figures that the value of imports has risen in the periods concerned even faster than the value of exports, and does not that give rise to concern?

It was always clear that devaluation would have the effect—and this was the intention—of raising import prices by more than export prices, and so there was bound to be the trend to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. But what is important as regards the outlook now is not the figures for the whole nine months of this year but the trend of the trade balance, and all those hon. Members who have been following that trend will have noted a very marked improvement in the past two months.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the imports of foreign steel into South Wales and to the fart that those imports doubled in the period up to 20th October this year as compared with the corresponding period last year? Will he give an undertaking to watch that unfavourable trend very closely?

My hon. Friend draws attention to a fact of which he is well aware, that there is a surplus of steel at present, which leads to great balance of payment problems not only for this country but for others. I shall continue to give very close attention to the point my hon. Friend mentioned.

Since imports have risen in both value and volume either at just about the same rate as exports, or a bit more, since devaluation, what reason has the right hon. Gentleman for thinking that exports can pull ahead in the future without pulling up imports after them?

Just to make sure that we are in agreement about the facts, exports have increased significantly faster than imports by volume—14 per cent. as compared with 11 per cent. On value, they are almost identical—26 per cent. and 25 per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arange to publish with the import-export figures each month sufficient detail to enable industry to identify those markets where imports are rising.

Extensive information is published in the Overseas Trade Accounts and more detailed monthly statistics are available to industry from the Bill of Entry Section of Customs and Excise.

Is the Minister aware that these figures arrive much later, and do not enable British manufacturers to identify the imports quickly enough, and that it is important that these figures should be available at the earliest opportunity to prevent panic reactions to the Board of Trade figures?

It is important that people should have these figures, but figures are available to manufacturers—both exporters and import-savers—in very large quantity from a number of sources, such as the Overseas Trade Accounts, which give commodities by main countries, H.M. Customs and Excise Bill of Entry Service, and the facilities available under Section 3 of the 1967 Finance Act. There is a limit to what one can usefully and economically provide, but we are providing a very good service in this respect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in the News of the World take-over bid.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to use his powers under the Monopolies and Mergers Act in connection with the takeover bid for the News of the World; and if he will make a statement.

On the information at present available, I have decided not to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Take-over Panel has been completely discredited by the events of the past few days? Can he say why the panel allowed Hambros to purchase shares at 50s. when previously Hambros had thought that 28s. was the maximum price it could pay? Since my right hon. Friend has responsibility for the High Street market, why cannot he take responsibility for the stock market also?

I do regard myself as being responsible in the last resort for protecting the interests of shareholders, particularly the growing number of small shareholders who do not have merchant banks or others to advise them. I accept that this must ultimately be my responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to say that recent events have given rise to acute anxiety and disquiet. I have discussed them with the Governor of the Bank of England. At present the City authorities and the Board of Trade are jointly considering the future of the panel and the take-over code, and any penalities under the code. Until those discussions are complete, I should not like to make any more definite statement.

Will my right hon. Friend at least take the opportunity of ensuring that the small shareholder has a fair opportunity to decide between the two relevant bids? Will he tell the House what representations he has received from the Opposition, who are extremely interested, as we all are, in ensuring maximum savings, which need the good will of shareholders investing in equities?

I am not conscious of having received any representations from the Opposition on this matter. I do not propose to intervene in the situation which my hon. Friend has in mind. On the more general question, if a voluntary system can be made to work it has obvious advantages for everyone, but if a voluntary system, even if reformed in the way that a number of people would like to see it reformed, fails to work again the Government must accept their responsibility, as I would. I would not hesitate then to take statutory powers.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman shelving his responsibilities? Surely the events of recent months have shown that he should have taken action, rather than look at the matter now when it is closed?

I am interested that it is the Opposition who are pressing to take legislative action in the matter, and I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Since the Government and the City are now working on a new code, and possibly a revised panel, it is right to await the outcome of those discussions before deciding whether Government action is necessary.

On a point of order. May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question, and the right hon. Gentleman deliberately misconstrued what I said.

Order. How a Minister answers questions is not a matter for the Chair.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his decision on the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibres.

We expect to have the result of the tariff review by the end of the year; my right hon. Friend will then be able to take a decision on the Commission's recommendations.

But the President of the Board of Trade himself said in July that he hoped to have the result of the tariff review in two months. Are we now to understand that it is to take six months in all?

I am afraid that the tariff review is taking longer than was previously expected, because it was decided that it was desirable to seek further views both from certain other producers like Lansil and other selected consumers as to the effect of a tariff reduction.

Have the Government decided still not to act on the individual recommendations but to wait and act on the Report as a whole?

We still wish to take a decision on the Report as a whole rather than a series of piecemeal decisions.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are firms in the spinning industry in Lancashire dependent on the one supplier for their raw material, which are engaged, and want to be further engaged, in the home and export trade in direct competition with that largely monopolistic supplier? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that expansion might be held back because of the situation shown to him in the report?

We shall take full account of the point of view which my hon. Friend has just expressed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what effects have the banning and the resumption of meat imports from Argentina had on British exports to that country.

I can give no precise estimate, but there is no doubt that some important contracts were lost. Since the restrictions on carcase meat were raised our export trade has made good progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past 18 months there has been steady, if slow, progress in our exports to Argentina, and that some of the exaggerated and gloomy forecasts when we had to ban meat coming to this country have not been proved true?

There was undoubtedly during the period of the ban a falling off in the rate of expansion we were looking for. The situation has improved subsequently, and I hope that it continues to improve and that our whole trade with Argentina gets into a better balance than it has recently been in.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further measures he intends to take to provide employment in those development areas especially subject to seasonal unemployment.

I have no further measures in mind. But a wide range of assistance is already available.

Does my hon. Friend agree that last winter additional assistance went into the South-West development area at between two and three times the rate to any other areas, and that as unemployment is higher than it was last year, both absolutely and in comparison with those other areas, it is illogical and unfair that the South-West has been completely left out of the £10 million programme for winter works this winter?

The Government have had to take account of the high figures of unemployment in other development areas. Nevertheless, considerable assistance is available to the South-West, among which are the new measures for tourism of which my hon. Friend is aware.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable concern that a great deal too much money, particularly in the way of Regional Employment Premium, is already being spent in the development areas and that the money does nothing whatsoever to bring new industry into the areas or reduce the level of unemployment?

I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the situation. In my judgment, the Regional Employment Premium assists both by encouraging new firms to come into the development areas and by making those which are already there more competitive and thus more capable of providing employment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts he has made of the direct investment in the overseas sterling area and the non-sterling area, respectively, in 1968; and whether they confirm a trend towards a lower proportion of investment in the overseas sterling area.

I cannot give exact figures which are liable to fluctuate from year to year, but I expect the proportion in the Overseas Sterling Area to be about 50 per cent., as compared with about 60 per cent. prior to 1966.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to appraise the trend correctly, we need a true estimate of the rate of return on overseas investment? Would he agree that the Reddaway basis, which takes no account of capital gains in overseas investment, is inadequate, and will he ensure that capital gains are taken into account in future estimates?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Professor Reddaway's final report is shortly to be published, and no doubt we shall all have an opportunity of discussing it then, particularly in the light of everything that both the hon. Gentleman and I said on this subject in 1965. I think that so far Professor Reddaway confirms my view of the subject rather than the hon. Gentleman's.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to define more precisely the rôle of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation vis-à-vis the Monopolies Commission; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. It is already well understood that the rôle of the I.R.C. is to promote and facilitate the desirable re-structuring of industry, and that of the Monopolies Commission is to investigate mergers which are referred to it by the Board of Trade; these two functions are wholly compatible.

Is not the crucial word "desirable"? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that at the moment the Monopolies Commission does not have the staff to enable it to look at mergers at short notice? Will he do something rapidly to remedy this and ensure that mergers recommended by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation are submitted to independent scrutiny?

I should not think it would make sense to refer all mergers or all mergers recommended by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to the Monopolies Commission. I think it is better to have prior consultation, as now exists, between the I.R.C. and the Board of Trade. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I am considering how we can strengthen the Monopolies Commission. In my view, the stronger the merger movement is, the greater is the need for the Monopolies Commission to prevent abuse of market power.

Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend's example of strengthening, on the one hand, the Monopolies Commission and, on the other hand, looking at the problem was not carried out in relation to the G.E.C.—G.E.C.-General Electric merger? Was it not unfortunate that that merger was not referred to the Monopolies Commission, and was not my right hon. Friend's statement afterwards totally unsatisfactory in this case?

I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not agree with the statement, which is a different thing from saying that it was totally unsatisfactory. The reasons why we did not refer that merger were explained clearly in my statement, and they are fairly generally known to the House. We decided that, on balance, it was a desirable merger and, therefore, did not want to hold it up for a number of months by referring it to the Monopolies Commission.

Will the right hon Gentleman take the opportunity to deny newspaper stories that the Prices and Incomes Board will be allowed anything to do with these matters?

I am not aware exactly what those newspaper stories are. I cannot spend the whole of my time reading newspaper stories. There are many better things in life to do than that. Therefore, I regret that I can neither confirm nor deny the reports that the right hon. Gentleman mentions.

Would my right hon. Friend please reassure me that, since the I.R.C. was established to re-structure industry, he will not re-establish the Monopolies Commission to frustrate it?

I should never dream of frustrating any child of my right hon. Friend. I can certainly give him the assurance: that all of us give the strongest possible support to the work of the I.R.C., a body which has been successfully carrying out, I think, the objectives that he had in mind when he set it up

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position regarding his proposals to accelerate the Kennedy Round tariff cuts; and if he will make a statement.

Our proposals, which my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 14th March, remain on the table. Progress depends on the ability of the principal countries concerned to meet the conditions attached to the offer.—[Vol. 760, c. 1638–43.]

Would the Government consider taking a fresh initiative with the new American Administration as soon as it is established in order to try to get more progress in the direction that we all want?

The question will, of course, arise whether the offer should remain open after 1st January, 1969. At a time when the new Administration is coming into office, I see no reason why our offer should be withdrawn, though, of course, this is a matter on which we have to act together with other countries whose views will be important in this respect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the continuation of the temporary increase in investment grants after the end of the current year; and what reply he has sent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to change the existing rates of investment grants.

I have received a number of representations from the C.B.I, and other bodies asking that the temporary increase in the rates of investment grant should be continued beyond the end of 1968. I have, however, stated on a number of occasions, most recently in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on 23rd October, that the rates will revert to 40 per cent. and 20 per cent. on 1st January, 1969.—[Vol. 770, c. 292.]

While I agree with that decision, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the very healthy prospective increase in investment next year in the service and distributive trades, quite apart from manufacturing industry, and does not this cast some doubt on the value of investment grants as a stimulus to manufacturing investment?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. As to the prospects for 1969, which are encouraging generally in both sectors—manufacturing and service and distribution—I should not like to draw any conclusions from the surveys of investment intentions which the Board of Trade carries out because, while I think they are an invaluable general guide to the trend of investment, the particular figures cannot be relied upon as a totally accurate indication of what will occur.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect a little more sympathetically on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and accept that investment grants are an area of public expenditure which could well be capable of very severe reduction as part of the strategy of tax reduction?

No, Sir; I would certainly not accept that. On the contrary, I think that investment grants were one of the major reasons why investment held up very much better in the last year or two in a period of relatively low demand than it has held up in any similar period since the end of the war.

Is it not the case that a substantial proportion of these investment grants are used for importing plant and machinery from abroad, and, bearing in mind the extent to which imports are bedevilling our balance of payments situation, is it not undesirable that the Government should subsidise them to this extent?

No, Sir. It is not a question of subsidy. The fact is that investment grants apply to all eligible machinery, whether bought at home or abroad. This must be true of any system of grants like this. We could not under any of our international obligations have a system of grants which differentiated between home production and imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cease the practice of publishing the trade figures every month.

No, Sir. The monthly figures provide essential information.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that some of the difficulties the pound has run into of late can be traced to this neurotic preoccupation with the monthly trade figures? Is it not the case that no other country publishes trade information in the form we make ours available to friend and foe alike? Does not my hon. Friend think we should publish the trade figures less frequently?

I think that we must publish the figures monthly. Our major trading competitors publish theirs monthly. I believe that people increasingly understand that one should not rely on a single month's figures for trade and that they will understand this even more when they observe the continuing favourable trend in our balance of payments.

Would not the proposal put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) have the effect of stopping the Prime Minister talking of economic miracles?

It is perhaps disturbing to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who no doubt will find many opportunities for such remarks, that our trading position is greatly improving. I am sure that it is the wish of the House in general that it should continue to do so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the present rate of British exports to, and investments in, South Africa, the Portuguese territories of Africa and the rest of the continent of Africa.

Comparing the first nine months of this year with the same period last year, United Kingdom exports fell by 3 per cent. to South Africa, and rose by 34 per cent. to the Portuguese Territories and 9 per cent. to the rest of Africa. There has, however, been a marked increase in exports in recent months, and in the third quarter exports to South Africa were 11½ per cent. higher and to the rest of Africa 24 per cent. higher than in the same period last year. The latest figures for private direct investment relate to the year 1966 when, compared with 1965, investment fell by 22 per cent. in South Africa, 33 per cent. in the Portuguese Territories and 35 per cent. in the rest of Africa.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to lock closely at our economic relations with Africa, thinking, first, in terms of principle and of our rejection of economic and racialist exploitation and, secondly, in terms of enlightened economic self-interest, and that we should therefore take opportunities in the main part of Africa which at present are being seized by so many of our industrial competitors?

The figures I quoted of exports to the rest of Africa will, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend that a considerable effort is going into increasing them. We must bear in mind what he said in the earlier part of his supplementary question, but if I took the view that we should not trade with any country of whose Government I politically disapproved we should have very few trading partners in the world.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the figures are so much out of date? Was it not one of the Budget measures to encourage investment in under-developed countries and discourage it in developed countries? If we are always two years behind in cur figures, is it not difficult to measure the success or failure of such Budget undertakings?

These figures come from another Department and I should like to look into the point put by the hon. Gentleman and write to him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in future, he will include in the monthly import figures the purchase of American military aircraft or missiles, so as to give a more accurate picture of the real balance of payments.

The import figures published monthly are shown both including and excluding arrivals of American military aircraft and associated equipment.

Does not this practice of excluding them look too much like an exercise by the Government in wishful thinking with regard to imports? If the real test is to be date of payment and not delivery, should not the same principle, in fairness, be applied to exports, which would make these figures look rather different?

The figures are shown in those published including American military equipment. They are treated separately because these imports are large, special and completely documented items. The reason for their exclusion from the visible trade balance figures is the effect they would have on the presentation of the balance of payments figures because, in this respect—and this is the main problem of the balance of payments as against the balance of trade—there are compensating credit entries.

But the same could apply to a large number of other items which are not pieces of defence equipment. This differentiation makes nonsense of the figures. For example, what about the proposed purchase by B.O.A.C, with dollars, of American aircraft? Surely this is exactly the same principle but it is treated differently.

The problem is not as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests because all the figures are presented. If the hon. Gentleman wanted, for example, to look at payments and drawings, he would find them in the quarterly estimates given in "Economic Trends". All the information is available and to segregate it in this way actually increases the amount of information available to those who study both our balance of payments and our balance of trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories in Scotland were unoccupied at the last convenient date; and what is the square footage.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories in Scotland are completed but empty; how many are under construction; and how many of these have not yet been assigned to prospective tenants.

At 31st October, 1968, 15 advance factories in Scotland, with a total area of approximately 335,000 square feet, were complete but unoccupied. Applications for two of these are under consideration. A further three are under construction and two of these have already been allocated.

Is priority still being given to the construction of advance factories in areas where collieries are closing down?

Obviously, we have a rolling programme which concerns special development areas. It is certainly true that we give them special consideration.

Does the hon. Lady agree that an empty factory helps no one? Is she satisfied with the present position in Scotland?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is very encouraging that 12 factories have been allocated during 1968, which is more than double the rate achieved in 1967. In the last four months, eight have been allocated. Although I am not pretending that I shall ever be satisfied while there is an empty advance factory, I am highly delighted that we seem to be letting them far faster than they have ever been let before.

Will my hon. Friend accept the compliments of this side of the House on her continued pursuit of this policy, bearing in mind that if these empty factories had not existed, the industries concerned would not have been there now?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall not be content until the development areas, which still have too high an unemployment rate, are providing employment at the rate which we think necessary, and the programme of advance factories is one very practical way of achieving that end.

What is the longest that one of the 15 factories now vacant has been vacant?

One factory has been standing empty since September, 1966. I do not pretend that I am happy about that, but I hope that we shall continue to let them as fast as we have let them in the last months.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that alternative employment is provided for the men who have become redundant as a result of the closure of Kingshill Colliery Number one.

The locality is in a Special Development Area and I hope that the additional assistance available to industry in these areas will encourage further development. The Harthill No. I advance factory has recently been allocated and the firm is now recruiting staff. Additional land is being bought, and as soon as this is acquired a start will be made on building a further advance factory.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that when this colliery closed about a fortnight ago, 91 men became redundant and that only four of them have found alternative work, which means that in an area where there was already more than 5 per cent. unemployment 87 more are unemployed? Will she realise how important it is that a second advance factory is built? Will she pay no attention to the arguments of Scottish hon. Members opposite?

I am well aware of the enormous amount of work which my right hon. Friend has done herself on behalf of her constituency and I assure her that we shall do everything we can to facilitate the rapid building of this advance factory.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of British exports to South Africa for the year to date, and what percentage change this represents over the corresponding period in 1967 and 1966, respectively.

£196 million to the end of September, which is 3 per cent. less than in the corresponding period of 1967 and 14 per cent. more than in the corresponding period of 1966.

Does not the very magnitude of these figures indicate the rich and beneficial opportunities which there are for Britain in the southern half of Africa, and ought that not to be a major factor in the negotiations now being concluded with Mr. Ian Smith?

No, Sir. The Rhodesian question is altogether a different question which is not for me to answer. The hon. Gentleman must know by now that I have made it clear that I support the highest possible level of civilian trade with South Africa.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a comparable drain of sterling into South Africa in recent years which in itself has adversely affected our balance of payments?

No, Sir. I gave the figures for our direct private investment in South Africa in answer to a previous Question a few minutes ago. The facts do not seem to support my hon. Friend's conclusion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman complete those figures by giving the value of the exports which South Africa was prepared to buy from this country and which the Government refused to allow British exporters to supply, such as Nimrod aircraft?

It was not simply a matter of the British Government refusing to allow these exports to South Africa. The British Government acted under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. However, to get the record straight I will say that, with one or two possible exceptions, all other major industrial countries are adopting the same policy as we are.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that in no circumstances whatever will military weapons be sent to South Africa?

Yes, Sir. I can reaffirm the Government's policy which has been made absolutely clear on more than one occasion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make changes whereby his Department will improve its liaison with the National Gallery with the object of enabling its purchases of works of art to be made at fair prices and at a reasonable profit to the seller.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why his official inquiries into the allegations concerning the sale at Aldwick Court in March took from May until October.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he took to inform the National Gallery of the investigation he has been carrying out into the activities of Mr. Julius Weitzner and other dealers after the sale of the Duccio painting at Aldwick Court, Somerset.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the inquiry officials of his Department are carrying out into the recent purchase by the National Gallery of the Madonna and Child by Duccio.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has referred the matter of the Duccio sale to the Director of Public Prosecutions since it is impossible to bring a case under the Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, as the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, provides a six months' limit which expired on 26th September, 1968; and what explanation he has for failing to act in time, in view of the information he was given earlier in the year.

With permission, I will answer these Questions after Question Time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase the quantity of waste paper collected, in view of the contribution which can be made thereby towards the reduction of pulp imports.

The contribution which the re-use of waste paper can make is well recognised. The practical problem is to gear recovery to the demands of the mills, which are not constant. What is most needed is long-term contracts for the purchase of waste paper from local authorities, and co-operation between mills, local authorities and merchants in watching trends and forecasting demand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety about the present situation in the waste paper industry and the possibility that one mill will have to import £50,000 of mixed waste because supplies are not available in this country? Will he at least reconsider the industry's demand that S.E.T. on it should be abolished?

S.E.T. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to investment grants, which come within the remit of my Department, I must emphasise that the Industrial Development Act limits investment grants to manufacturing activities. The figures of the use of waste paper this year show a marked rise over the figures of last year. However, the important thing in order to avoid problems of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is the recommendations of the Paper and Board E.D.C., to which I have referred in the last sentence of my Answer related to the organisation of demand so that people have a guaranteed outlet for their collection.

On a point of order. In this quarter of the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to hear what is being said. Will those behind the scenes turn up the apparatus?

I am seized of the point of order. I shall have it looked into. I hope, however, that points of order will not be raised until the end of Question Time unless they are very important.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to make a financial grant towards the development and construction of major off-shore airports near the East Coast to serve London and the East Midlands.

Adequate powers are already available, should the need arise.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in a thickly populated island like ours, the only sensible location for major airports must be on platforms offshore, and will he agree also that any consideration of other types of site by commissions or committees now sitting is a complete waste of time?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's second proposition. I agree, however, with his first, that there is an interesting prospect here in the establishment of major airports offshore. Chicago, for example, has in mind, I understand, a new airport in Lake Michigan. This is, however, principally a technological matter upon which I could not usefully comment further.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a fairly large number of passengers to whom proximity to a major centre of population is not of first importance and that, in the circumstances, a lot of the noise and inconvenience which is caused by flying could be saved by adopting his hon. Friend's suggestion?

Yes; a balance has to be struck, and that is a point to be borne in mind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the construction of an airport at Todwick to serve Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

The construction of an airport to serve Sheffield would in the first instance, be a matter for the city council, and I understand that it has a project under consideration.

Has a study been made of feeder line services in the United States? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that South Yorkshire needs international business, and Sheffield is the largest city without a major airport? Will he offer positive encouragement rather than passive reception of information coming from the city council?

I should certainly offer positive encouragement to those who see an essential need and seek to satisfy it. I know the hon. Gentleman's long interest in the particular needs of Sheffield, and I hope that they will be pursued, bearing in mind the full nature of the problem and regional as well as local requirements.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that positive and careful consideration is being given to the construction of a major airport in the Yorkshire-Humber-side areas?

Nothing to do with it.

There seems to be a difference of opinion about what is needed, which emphasises the need for very careful consideration. We shall bear in mind and take the closest interest in all proposals made to us.

Is not one of the major obstacles to a really successful regional development policy the lack of international air services to and from many of our provincial centres?

That goes rather wider than the Question. We have to keep a sense of proportion here. We want the full development of domestic and international services, but we must make sure that our investment in civil aviation and airports is acceptable in terms of total national priorities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to apply the airport consultation procedure provided under the Civil Aviation Act, 1968.

We have started consultations with associations representative of aerodrome owners and, in the light of these, intend to designate aerodromes where there is evidence of public need and demand. A few requests for designation have already been received.

Should not the procedure be advertised, since aerodrome owners are less likely than the public to want to see it introduced? Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to see that the Act is made use of?

I will see that the provisions of the Act are known as widely as possible. I shall also bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman himself said during our debates on the Bill—that these provisions should be operated in a reasonable and sensible way.

Would not the profitability of British civil airline operators be increased if they were more adventurous in opening up new routes in Britain?

I do not think that that would necessarily follow.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to restore the profitability of British civil airline operations.

I am aware of certain current problems but the recession in airline operations is not confined to British operators. We must await the report of the Edwards Committee to guide us on the longer term.

That is a complacent reply. The current problems can be described as conditions of extreme difficulty in an industry which is a major foreign exchange earner. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we therefore cannot afford to wait for the Edwards Report?

There are problems. As long as the present system exists, it would be wrong to change it before the Edwards Report is made. It is up to the operators to make applications to the Air Transport Licensing Board and for the Board to decide on those applications. There is a danger of airline operators suffering a loss in traffic which would not be offset by the increase in rates.

In view of the importance of the issue, when may we expect the Edwards Report?

By Easter, 1969, I hope.

Will the hon. Gentleman treat this with great urgency? Not only the independent but the nationalised airlines are operating under extreme difficulties. Unless some action is taken to alleviate their financial problems, British airlines will be in serious trouble within months.

I am aware of the difficulties, and it is proper that we should discuss them in this way today. But we must bear in mind that any major change which may be required should be made with all the facts before us. Reluctant as I am to have to await the Edwards Report, it would be nonsensical to make a decision before receiving it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will define the official terms "short haul" and "medium haul" in so far as commercial air flights are concerned.

There is no official definition of the terms "short haul" and "medium haul" but the former generally means a flight of under 1,000 miles and the latter a flight of 1,000 to 2,000 miles.

As there is no official definition of these terms and as they are never applied to ships of the sea, why should they be applied to ships of the air, particularly in view of the enormous development which aircraft engines have undergone in the last few years?

There is no international definition, but it is useful to have a "shorthand" method of defining aircraft of this type and it serves a purpose.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the use and application of the terms "municipal" and "international" in so far as the official classification of airports is concerned.

We do not classify United Kingdom airports in this way. The International Civil Aviation Organisation classifies certain aerodromes as international but the term "municipal airport" is not used.

I am very glad to hear that statement and I take it that Glasgow Airport will no longer in any circumstances whatever be referred to as a municipal airport.

I am sure that the future of Glasgow Airport will turn on something rather more significant than the way in which it is described and I know the active championship of Glasgow which my hon. Friend has pursued. Here again, however, "shorthand" is useful. I remind my hon. Friend of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 22nd February when he endorsed the previous agreement between—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—are hon. Members opposite dissatisfied with this reply? I was saying that my right hon. Friend endorsed the previous agreement between the British Airports Authority and the Glasgow Corporation. This matter was also pursued at length the other night on the Adjournment and I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite will be satisfied.

On a point of order. In view of the continued interruptions of hon. Members opposite and the difficulty of hearing what my hon. Friend has just said, may I be assured that he said nothing just now to qualify his main Answer?

I must leave that to the hon. Gentleman to determine for himself.

I would not wish to detain the House. I thought that I had made my point of order, which was that I could not hear in this part of the House. I think that our friend has turned up the sound equipment.

The hon. Lady made this point last night, also. I did not wish to appear discourteous just now, but it helps if these points of order are raised after Question Time. We will look into the difficulty that the hon. Lady is complaining about. I am not sure that the acoustics of the place are perfect. At any rate, hon. Members can help by always speaking up.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a study of the consequences for the balance of payments of the import of ships from abroad as a result of investment grants and free depreciation.

The purpose of these incentives is to encourage investment in new ships by British owners. The British shipping industry makes a valuable contribution to the balance of payments.

If the Japanese, for instance, charge a 15 per cent. tariff on new ships, why should we subsidise them to the extent of 25 per cent.? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has already cost the taxpayers £66 million? Will he not at least set up an impartial inquiry into this drain on taxpayers' money across the exchanges for no apparent benefit?

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that under the Kennedy Round the tariff to which he has referred has been reduced and will be reduced further. As to an inquiry, we are, of course, aware of, and study, the consequences for the balance of payments of our various actions in this field. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that a British-owned ship, even if bought abroad, if given a reasonable rate of profitability, is likely to make a positive contribution to our balance of payments, which, reading the Question, seems to be what the hon. Gentleman is interested in.

Will my hon. Friend consider having a review of subsidising shipping in this country in respect of ships that are built abroad, which is actively under consideration by many people who are interested in shipping matters?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are in frequent negotiation with our competitors abroad on the subject of subsidies for shipbuilding. We hope to eliminate subsidies for shipbuilding. We do not regard investment grants for shipping—which are involved in this case—as constituting a subsidy. We regard them as an incentive to the British shipping industry, which makes a valuable contribution to our balance of payments.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of British merchant shipping is now using the Cape route; and what was the figure in 1965.

I regret that this information is not readily available.

But this is the kind of information which the Department should be able to provide. Is it not clear already that the Suez Canal is not likely to be as important again? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Government with regard to safeguarding the Cape route?

It is necessary to have a sense of proportion about the collection of information. I agree that the Cape route is important and it is likely to remain particularly so as long as the Suez Canal is closed.