asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish details, including the relevant computer programmes and flow charts, of the methods used each month to produce the seasonally adjusted trade figures from the recorded figures.

As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 20th November last year, a revised article describing the seasonal adjustment methods will be published in due course.—[Vol. 773, c. 287.]

But will not the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the computer routine? Does he realise that his explanation, which we shall be grateful to see in due course, while covering manual methods and the general system, will not necessarily provide enough information to academics and others who wish to examine the figures more closely?

The computer routine, which is a technical tool used to fulfil certain principles of seasonal adjustment, would not greatly help in providing the public with information. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come again to the Board of Trade to look at the computer routine, I shall be perfectly ready to let him see it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will include each month in the published trade figures the recorded total for the 12 months up to and including the month in question.

No, Sir. I see no advantage to be gained from including this which, if needed, can be compiled from published figures. It would, however, be misleading because, as the Notes to the Accounts explain, amendments are incorporated in the "cumulative" totals and not in the monthly figures.

Will not the Minister consider publishing something which gives us a clearer indication of general trends as well as merely past trends, and will he accept the difficulty, as stated in the words of the O.E.C.D. Secretariat, of applying "very complex techniques in some cases to data which have already been smoothed by a moving average, without a full grasp of the implications of this"?

I am sorry that, unlike his father, the hon. Gentleman seems to be interested in last year's Bradshaw.

Who thought that one out for the Minister?

If recent trends are wanted, the best method to use is the three-month moving average based on seasonally adjusted figures. If one wants the longer-term trend, the best thing is what is published in the Press notice, that is, the Spencer 15-term weighted moving average, again based on the seasonally adjusted monthly figures.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the new management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for the reorganisation and rationalisation of their operations; and what proposals he has put forward for the re-employment of men, women and plant made redundant by such reorganisation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the General Electric Company-English Electric Company about its proposed reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he had with the management of the General Electric Company-English Electric Company before the recent announcement of their proposal to close down plants belonging to this group in Witton, Birmingham and elsewhere.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he has had with the management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for reorganisation and the effect this will have on employment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the management of General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries and English Electric regarding the implication of the merger between the companies for the employment situation.

The company notified my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State before announcing its recent proposals for redundancies at certain of its works. I understand that it will shortly have further discussions with the trade unions. Depending on the timing and phasing of the redundancies, my right hon. Friend does not expect that any serious difficulties will arise in the redeployment of those affected. None of the four factories mentioned in the company's announcement is in a development area, but I shall, of course, watch closely the effect of any closures on our distribution of industry policy.

Disposal of surplus plant is a matter for the company.

But what part did my right hon. Friend play in the decisions before they were announced? The Gov- ernment will be blamed for any short-term redundancies, regardless of the need for rationalisation and reorganisation, because they have approved the merger. What we are asking my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to do is to take part in decisions, not merely receive decisions which are made by the companies.

I take the point which my hon. Friend makes, but the redundancy problem is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. She can answer for herself, but I understand that she is satisfied that the company has fulfilled the pledge which it gave when the merger was approved to consult her about its rationalisation programmes in relation to redundancies.

Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that there is sufficient emphasis on the part of the new merged firm on exports in certain directions? Is he aware that many of the workers believe that Mr. Weinstock is so mesmerised by the concept of a high margin of profit that certain aspects of the present production may be eliminated because the margin of profit is not so high, and this could well affect exports which are so important for the country's economy?

My hon. Friend raises a rather more general point than the one in the Questions. As regards exports, which are my concern, I can only say that we are in touch with the company about how it sees the development of its exports, and I would not as of now accept the implications of what he said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the plant in my constituency at Witton these are the second major redundancies announced within 12 months? This is bound to have an extremely serious effect on the local employment situation, especially on the sort of highly-skilled labour employed there, which may have difficulty in finding alternative employment. I know that; this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but will my right hon. Friend persist in his approach to the company to see that full advantage is taken of the opportunities for diversification and export?

Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer Questions.

I am aware of the position at Witton, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend. But I would emphasise that all these proposed closures—they are still only proposals, which are to be discussed with the trade unions-are in areas of low unemployment. I do not at present see the likelihood that in consequence of the closures we shall have a serious unemployment problem in any of these areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the large private combines now being created do not have sufficient public accountability to both the nation and the workers within the industry concerned? What are his views about the speed at which mergers are developing, and about whether they necessarily serve the country and the rationalisation programme that he supports?

The question of accountability raises very wide issues which it would be hard to discuss at Question Time. My hon. Friend will have noticed from certain recent actions I have taken that I do not share at least the current uncritical view that all mergers are good under all circumstances.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most damaging things for the morale of workers is uncertainty about whether their firm is to close? In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, rumours are spreading that a particular factory will close. I know that this is not my right hon. Friend's direct responsibility, but could he bring what influence he has to bear on the management of the company at least to make an announcement and give some sort of certainty to workers in its employ?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot take on the responsibilities of another Department. This is entirely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, and I know that she is well aware of the considerations my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman's Department pushing mergers so hard generally throughout industry? What does he hope to achieve thereby?

It does not seem the general opinion of Press commentators at any rate that my Department is engaged in pushing mergers as hard as it can on all sides.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what official action is being taken to support the establishment, extension and operations of the British motor industry in Singapore.

I have received no specific request from the British motor industry for official support for its operations in Singapore. The normal range of Government services under which advice and assistance are available for firms engaging in overseas activities is at its disposal.

Does my hon. Friend always wait to receive requests? Does not she offer encouragement as well? In view of the offer of the Prime Minister of Singapore, extending a very hearty welcome to British industry, should not she make special efforts to encourage British industry to go to a place where we are welcome and there is great potential?

I accept my hon. Friend's strictures, although I was brought up to believe that ladies waited until they were asked. But I hope that it will be a matter for the commercial concern of the companies, who will be aware of the remarks of the Prime Minister of Singapore, and who, I hope, will actively follow them up.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, to avoid the present variations in industry observing the industrial breaks at Christmas and the New Year, he will initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the possibilities of having an eight-day national holiday week covering Christmas to New Year's Day.

The question of the duration of the Christmas holiday period is a matter for negotiation between the employees and the employing firm. Any such negotiation should have the closest regard to the criteria of the incomes policy.

Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we as a party are in power to provide an expanded life and expanded luxury for workers—[Interruption.]—the anti-worker party is on the opposite side of the House—and that the gesture of a mid-winter holiday would be rewarded by an increase in productivity which would more than offset any days lost?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's views on what would lead to a rise in productivity, but I am sure he will accept that this is a matter that as yet must be decided by individual firms.

Will the hon. Lady, after dismissing the humour of the last supplementary question, consider whether it would not be more appropriate for her Department to try to do everything to encourage British people, whether management or workers, to take fewer unofficial holidays and increase the general productivity of industry?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country, in spite of the sort of publicity various hon. Members insist on giving it, has a very good record in the number of days lost through strikes. It is not only up to individual workers but to management to see what they can do about productivity levels.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dependence of the Bromsgrove area on the motor trade, he will consider issuing industrial development certificates to encourage alternative light industry to the district.

Unemployment in Bromsgrove is fortunately very low and there are more unfilled vacancies than unemployed. While I take full account of local circumstances, I must continue to look critically at I.D.C. applications there, particularly from firms outside the area.

Is the hon. Lady aware that representatives of the trades council saw me recently and expressed great concern about the industry having so many eggs in one basket? If there were a recession in the motor industry, there would be very high unemployment.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point that obviously one does not wish to have no diversification in an area, but he will be delighted to know that in the three years from January, 1966 nine I.D.C.s were issued for the Bromsgrove employment exchange area for a total of 104,000 sq. ft. Only one application was refused.

Will my hon. Friend consider this suggestion on a quid pro quo basis? For example, if major sections of the motor manufacturing industry could be transferred to South Wales we would be prepared to transfer some of our new light industries to the Bromsgrove district.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are doing everything we can to move industries out to the development areas. One can hardly be content with a situation where 4·1 per cent. is still the unemployment figure in the development areas. If there were some way of organising such a quid pro quo as my hon. Friend suggests, I should be delighted to hear about it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how the rate of growth of world trade in 1968 compared with the rate of growth of British exports on an equivalent basis during the same period; what is his estimate of the likely growth in world trade in 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The relevant comparison is for exports of manufactured goods. In terms of volume, British exports of manufactures in 1968 were 14½ per cent. greater than in 1967, while world exports of manufactures are provisionally estimated to have increased by something over 14 per cent. The latest figures indicate that we are now securing a larger share of this increase. While I expect world trade to grow rather less fast in 1969, I confidently expect a strong growth this year in British exports.

Whilst I pay tribute to the efforts of British industry in achieving these exports, may I ask to what extent the right hon. Gentleman thinks that they are attributable to the growth of world trade? What are the probable consequences if the forecasts of a down-turn in world trade in 1969 turn out to be true?

I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Nobody expects a down-turn in world trade. What we expect is merely a rather slower rate of increase than occurred last year. I think that that was a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman.

As to the explanation of these matters, we must remember that the British share of exports of world manufactures has been consistently falling for the past decade and a half. Last year, for the first time, we began to hold our own. Next year, when the full advantage of devaluation makes itself felt, I have no doubt that we shall for the first time probably for 20 years increase our share of world exports and manufactures.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the full effect of devaluation will take place only next year? To what extent does he think that the price-cost advantage of devaluation has already been eroded in relative terms?

I expect the full effects to be felt only next year because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of many heavy engineering goods, aircraft and ships there is a very long time lag between order and delivery—in the case of ships probably two to three years. That is why the full effects will not make themselves felt until 1969.

Not 1970?

In the case of ships and aircraft it will often be 1970 also.

As to the erosion, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman suggested in the latter part of his supplementary question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to revising the system of allocation of industrial development certificates.

The I.D.C. control is reviewed from time to time as circumstances require.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Report of the East Anglian Regional Council confirmed up to the hilt the miserably low earnings in Norfolk and, therefore, the vital need to get more industry there? Will my hon. Friend use her good offices to ensure that inquiries at an early stage, before I.D.C. applications, are channelled towards that area?

I accept my hon. Friend's worries about Norfolk. I am sure that he realises that we consider I.D.C. applications very sympathetically, for North Norfolk particularly. In 1968 I.D.C.s were issued for 4·7 million sq. ft. We refused only three. We shall do all we can to channel inquiries in that direction.

What is the view of the hon. Lady's Department on the finding of the C.B.I.'s survey that the very restrictive attitude to I.D.C.s in the developed parts of the country may actually be hampering the expansion and regeneration of the under-developed parts of the country?

I totally reject that view. It is frequently based, not on objective surveys, but on subjective opinions. We should try to emphasise that there is a continuing propaganda campaign building up in some more over-populated areas to say that this is a highly restrictive policy, which is not true. We are allowing firms which carry out modernisation schemes to go ahead in the South-East and in the Midlands. It is very important that people should realise that what we are doing in the development areas is just not important to those areas: it is important to British industry as a whole.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the increased opportunities for British exporters in the light of the effect of the recent increase in world sugar prices on the purchasing power of sugar producing countries.

It would be difficult to make a separate estimate for this one factor among the many which influence the level of world trade.

Does not the fact that Britain has signed the new agreement, whereas the Common Market countries have not, give us a moral right to expect a large slice of the extra trade which will accrue from this agreement? Will my hon. Friend do everything she can to draw the attention of British exporters to the fact that these sales will not fall into their lap and that they will have to go out and sell in places like Jamaica and Cuba?

I do not accept that we have a moral right to expect anybody to trade with us. It is about time British industry learned that it has got to sell all over the world.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the proposed takeover of English Calico Limited by Courtaulds Limited, and into the eventual structure of the textile industry as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the proposed merger between Courtaulds and English Calico.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to refer the bid made by Courtaulds for English Calico to the Monopolies Commission.

As I announced in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, Courtaulds has agreed at my request to withdraw its current proposal to bid for English Calico. I shall examine the future structure of the industry in the light of the forthcoming Productivity and Efficiency Study and in close consultation with the industry and the Textile Council. In particular, I shall have the advice, not only of the Chairman of the Textile Council, but also of the Chairman of the I.R.C.—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.1

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not allowing the industry's future to be decided in an arbitrary fashion. However, is there not a need for further rationalisation of the industry? Is it not a fact that the Textile Council, by the very nature of its membership, is not really fitted for this type of examination? Would it not be better to have an inquiry other than a private Departmental one, the results of which could later be published so that we could all consider them and debate them fully in the House?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that further rationalisation is necessary. On the other hand, I do not agree with him that we need still one more outside independent study. This industry has been endlessly studied and endlessly reported on; and now that we know the facts it is a matter of making up our minds.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the right place to decide upon rationalisation is in the Board of Trade. Does he not think that in this confusion which we are all getting into, with the welter of monopolies and mergers which are taking place, it would be much better if the matter were reviewed under a procedure similar to the American anti-trust laws, and the matter could then be heard by a court which was independent and these very important matters would not be decided by the say-so of officials or Ministers?

The main difficulty about doing that is that we do not have the American anti-trust laws. If we were to have a court of the kind that has been suggested, it would involve elaborate legislation and the court could not possibly exist until a year or two years had elapsed. I personally—I am sure that the industry will fully agree with me here—am not prepared to accept that further degree of delay.

When the President speaks about the inquiry, is he referring to the inquiry that has been going on for some time by the Textile Council? If so, when does he expect the report? If not, is there a new inquiry as a result of the bid that has recently been rejected by the Board of Trade?

There is, on the one hand, as the House well knows, the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study, which I daily expect to receive. There is, on the other hand, what I am now proposing in the light of that study and other reports on the industry. I am now proposing to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to lead a team, which will consist of officials from interested Departments, which will have access to the Textile Council and its staff, and which will draw on the advice of the Chairman of the I.R.C. and any other outside advice which may prove to be necessary, to make recommendations on further rationalisation in the light of the Council's study.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that if the results of this private Departmental and relatively academic inquiry are not acceptable to industry he will have to introduce legislation?

This will certainly not be an academic inquiry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, may, for all I know, have academic qualities, but he also has plenty of non-academic qualities. We intend this to be a very realistic and commercially orientated study. As to what will happen if the industry does not agree with the conclusions we reach, I think we had better wait and see what happens.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate legislation preventing directors being trustees of their own company's employees' pension funds.

I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Is it not wrong for directors to use their powers as trustees of workers' pension funds when mergers are taking place to take decisions which will affect the interest of those workers and when, by the very nature of things, the directors are clearly not able to take an objective view? Should not some action be taken by the Board of Trade in this connection?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, legislation would be required to achieve that, but we shall certainly consider whether it is right to take the action he recommends in the context of further companies legislation.

Would it not be reasonable to exclude the employees as well as the directors of the firms in question?

Directors are in a special position, because there are possible conflicts of interest in such take-over situations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most cases a very good job is done for workers' pension funds by directors and employees? Does he also realise that when workers are members of an investment panel they are often very careful to select companies which will not be taken over?

I entirely accept that in general pension funds are very well administered. Nevertheless, there may be a problem when the whole or a substantial part of a pension fund is invested in the employees' own company, thus increasing the risk to which the employees are exposed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what deficit in United Kingdom balance of payments, excluding capital account and related only to current account including invisibles and re-exports, occurred in 1968, compared with 1967 and 1966; what improvement in exports occurred in 1968 and how the policy of imports substitution helped trade balances; and what further measures he proposes for export promotion and imports diminution during 1969.

The full current account balance of payments figures for 1968 will not be available until March. Exports in 1968 were 23 per cent. higher in sterling terms than in 1967, and 14 per cent. higher in volume. This strong increase in exports, together with import saving, contributed to the steady improvement in the current balance during the course of 1968. As to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave him on 6th November last.—[Vol. 772, c. 864–5.]

As there is this strong rise in exports, what evidence has the right hon. Gentleman that in 1969 we shall not have an even stronger rise in imports, notwithstanding the discouraging effect of the import deposit scheme which so far appears to be nugatory?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have said more than once, it is too early to judge the likely effect of the import deposit scheme. I think that it is absolutely clear from present trends that the increase in exports generally in 1969 will significantly and substantially exceed any possible increase in imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the trend of the investment intentions in the distributive and service trades in 1969; and how these compare generally with the investment intentions of manufacturing industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of manufacturing industry's investment in 1969; and how this compares with the actual level in 1968.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what he estimates will be the increase in the level of manufacturing investment during 1969.

The information available was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 24th January, 1969.

Would the Minister of State be prepared to reconsider the classification of one industry now regarded as a service industry, namely, the scrap reclamation industry which has an enormous potential for import saving? Would it not be a good idea for something to be done to encourage the investment, expansion, and prosperity of this industory in the national interest?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the classification of the industry in the investment intentions forecast made by the Board of Trade or for investment grants. I dealt with the subject of investment grants in answer to the hon. Gentleman last month, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

Will the Minister of State discuss with his right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the making of a comprehensive policy statement by the Government about their attitude towards stimulating investment, as every hoped for increase in industrial investment appears to be frustrated before it occurs?

We have every expectation of an increase in industrial investment this year. There are already substantial incentives to manufacturing investment which compare favourably with those available anywhere else in the world.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of investment overseas by British manufacturers, and of investment by overseas manufacturers in the United Kingdom in 1968, respectively; how this trend differs from previous years; and what he estimates will be the position in 1969.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Further, as successive measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the years have made such a poor return on investment at home inevitable, and in view of the Reddaway Report, what steps will the Minister take to encourage British investment overseas? Secondly, is he encouraging American investment in this country?

On the latter part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will know that inward investment in this country has been very high this year. On the first part, he will, again, know that there are certain criteria against which overseas investment is judged. If it meets those criteria it is permitted. Nevertheless, as the Reddaway Report shows, overseas investment can mean a serious cost to the balance of payments which outweighs its benefits.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will order an investigation under the powers conferred by section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the affairs of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited and allied and associated companies.

On 13th January the Board of Trade under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, required the production of the books and papers of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Ltd. As a result of preliminary inquiries, the Board on 29th January appointed inspectors under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of the company and of Curtis & Co. Ltd.

Is not this very late in the day? Has not the bird flown? Will not the Minister accept that reputable pharmaceutical companies gave the Board of Trade information about this concern two years ago and more? Why has the Board of Trade been so dilatory?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of Section 109 of the 1967 Act, the Board of Trade now has powers which are important in this regard and which we did not have before the Act was passed.

May I thank my hon. Friend for having set up this inquiry, as I asked him to do three weeks ago? Will he bear in mind that the legislation available to the Board of Trade and other Ministries is totally inadequate to meet this kind of extraordinary situation? Can he give an assurance that there will be consultation with the Ministry of Social Security and other Ministries?

I think that my hon. Friend will find that Section 109 and Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1967, have considerably improved the situation in this respect.

The hon. Gentleman had this power in 1967. Why has it taken so long to do anything when, according to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), information was available two years ago?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Act came into force at the end of 1967 or early 1968. Action has now been taken to pursue this investigation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations he is conducting with overseas countries concerning the renewal of their quotas for textile goods after the expiry of the present arrangements.

None, Sir; the Cotton Textiles Agreement does not expire until 30th September, 1970. The G.A.T.T. Cotton Textiles Committee will be meeting this autumn to decide whether or not to extend the Agreement for a further period, and I shall meanwhile be considering the Government's policy in the light of the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study.

When we last discussed it, the President of the Board of Trade accepted that there was some urgency in the matter. Is it not surprising, therefore, that his Answer today shows that he is not conducting any negotiations? Is not the right hon. Gentleman in danger of getting up against the buffers of time unless he gets on with it?

We must all be wary of coming up against the buffers of time. I have repeatedly said that I would not consider a future long-term policy for imports until I had had the productivity and efficiency study. We shall have this within a matter of days. Of course we must pay close attention to the timetable, but the present quota system under which the industry is operating does not run out until the end of 970, and so we still have two years to consider the matter.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the cotton textile industry would have more confidence in the review which he has mentioned if it knew what sort of market it had to cater for after 1970? Should it not at least appear to everybody that the review is taking that into consideration?

There is not the slightest doubt that the productivity and efficiency study will contain a long and thorough analysis of the present place of imports in the industry and the rôle they should play in future.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to how many general printing and publishing firms census of production forms were sent on 1st January, 1969, on behalf of the Business Statistics Office.

11,742 forms were issued on the 1st January, 1969, to firms in the general printing and publishing industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this form contains more than a hundred detailed questions requiring such vital information as the number of jam pot covers and bottle caps sold during;: he previous 12 months? What estimate has been made of the number of hours of non-productive work required in small firms to produce these answers? Is not this an example of Bureaucracy gone stark staring mad?

Of the number of forms I mentioned nearly 8,000 were simplified questionnaires sent to establishments with fewer than 25 persons employed. The forms have been sent out as part of the 1968 census of production. There have been censuses of production in this country at intervals since 1907. They provide both the Government and industry with essential information which industry needs as much as the Government.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that these forms were prepared by qualified statisticians who presumably evaluated the questions to be asked? Would he not further agree that a great number of man hours and a lot of unnecessary labour was due to a high proportion of these forms not being returned forthwith? Can he tell the House what proportion of these forms were returned?

The forms have only recently been issued and we would not expect a significant proportion of them to be returned yet. This is essential information, and I would have thought it the common view of the House that it is important to have statistical information for the use of industry, comparable with that available anywhere else in the world.

As the hon. Gentleman has been talking about last year's Bradshaw, can he tell us when this census will be available for industry?

I hope that it will be available in the course of the next few years. I entirely agree that there is a very considerable delay in the production of cen suses of production. The 1963 census of production was very badly delayed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now introducing a new and improved system for this purpose, which will combine quarterly returns with annual returns, and make information very much more speedily available than has been the case in the past.

Would it not be better if the Minister allowed industry to decide what kind of information it wishes to collect, through its own associations, instead of the Government coming in?

We consult with the industries concerned before we put out these census forms. In the case of the general printing and publishing firms, we had consultations with the industry, as we always do.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's latest estimate of the likely shortage of hotel beds in Great Britain in 1970.

I regret that there is insufficient information about hotels in this country to provide a basis for a meaningful estimate.

Is it not a fact that the British Travel Association is able to make such an estimate? If the Government think that their hotel grants and loan scheme will be effective in increasing hotel accommodation, why have they waited until now to introduce it? Would it not have been better if it had been put in effect a year ago when the previous loan scheme expired?

There is not a great deal of enthusiasm on the other side of the House for collecting certain sorts of information. If there was, I might agree that we need more than we have. Some estimates have been made, but I do not think that they are sure enough to be a basis for policy making. As for the proposals, we are introducing a Bill which will be published sooner rather than later. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find it a good one.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has carried out some extremely useful work in this connection? Will he confirm that, in considering the future areas of responsibility of the Board and the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands Board already has a useful record which should be built upon?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks.

Is the Minister really telling us that he proposes to allow B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to invest very large sums of money in hotels without knowing what the need is?

This is certainly not what I said. There is a need for more hotel accommodation, which is not disputed on either side of the House. I hope that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be able to make a full contribution to the need for newer accommodation and thus play their part in encouraging the tourist industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the factors causing the 8 per cent. increase over 1967 in the 1968 volume of imports compared with the 4 per cent. increase in the gross national product between the same years.

Imports generally rise faster than the gross national product, particularly in years of above average growth like 1968. There were also exceptional imports last year of diamonds and silver.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands the volume of their imports over the 10 years up till 1967 increased faster than the volume of our own imports? Does this not suggest that the solution to our problem is to be found not so much in cutting down imports, but rather on the export side?

I would broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is peculiar about our balance of trade, compared with other advanced industrial countries is, as he rightly says, the failure of exports to rise as fast, not the fact that imports have risen unduly fast.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the document, reported to be circulating round his Department, about the reason why imports have been increasing steadily over recent years? Would he care to publish the document for the benefit of the public?

A great number of admirable and carefully thought-out documents circulate round the Board of Trade at all times. In so far as there is any document, or might be a number of documents, on this subject the Answer which I have given this afternoon crisply summarises their arguments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be particularly careful about the use he makes of the term "gross national product", as this is one of the terms by which the Prime Minister is now affectionately known?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to publish a White Paper on Government policy on monopolies and mergers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has to take steps to alter the powers and the composition of the Monopolies Commission.

As I told the House in November, I am reviewing the working of the Monopolies Commission. Meanwhile I have decided to take administrative steps to strengthen both the membership and the staff of the Commission, and to improve the arrangements for deciding on references to it. I shall consider whether to make a further statement when the review is complete.—[Vol. 772, c. 88.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer is quite unsatisfactory? Hon. Members and the Press realise that a draft paper, an interdepartmental inquiry, has been in existence in his Department for a number of month;;? Is it not right that the House should have sight of that document, even if it is only placed in the Library if he will not publish it? We should like to know not only the Department's views but the right hon. Gentleman's views on strengthening the Monopolies Commission.

I have already given my views on the strengthening of the Monopolies Commission at this stage in the review which we are undertaking. As to draft documents circulating in the Board of Trade or elsewhere, if we were to publish them, or put them all in the Library—every draft document circulating in Whitehall—the hon. Member would have no time for anything but reading.

Do not the Government need to make up their own mind on these importait matters and to publish their views? Why was the Minister, if he was to refer Unilever and Allied Breweries to the Monopolies Commission, so indecisive as to wait eight weeks before doing so?

On the first point, I entirely agree that the Government and the Opposition and each one of us must make up our minds on what is an extraordinarily intricate subject. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me express my view briefly at a dinner at the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, which he was good enough to attend, only two weeks ago. As to Unilever and Allied Breweries, this was the first reference made to the Commission under the size criterion of the 1965 Act. In terms of size it was also by far the largest reference ever made to the Commission. I thought that this raised a number of exceptionally serious problems which I was determined to take time to consider before giving a view one way or the other.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of visible overseas trade for November, 1968, excluding figures relating to imports of United States military aircraft; what was the balance including such figures; and what has been the total payment in respect of United States military aircraft in the last available 12 months.

The visible trade deficit in November, 1968, was £16 million, excluding both imports of United States military aircraft and exports of British engines for them; the trade balance is not calculated including these transactions, but imports in November were valued at £41 million. Total payments in the 12 months ended December for United States military aircraft were £109 million.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that by excluding our payments for military aircraft and equipment we are giving a very different view about the balance of payment figures to many outside this country, and that when, as is often the case, they wake up to this differential of something like £110 million overall a year, it makes the situation very much worse for the Government?

It is necessary to distinguish visible trade from the balance of payments. The payments account in respect of these aircraft appears in the balance of payments figures published every three months in Economic Trends. There is therefore no concealment and no lack of information.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the £109 million expenditure on United States military aircraft is contained under the Ministry of Defence or some other Department?

This is certainly part of this Government's military expenditure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of compulsory and voluntary liquidations of private and public companies, respectively, and in total in 1968; and if he will tabulate how these numbers compare with those for previous years, indicating the value of the assets involved.

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

Is it not a fact that Government measures have caused considerable stress among the medium companies because of the credit squeeze? What steps will the Minister take to keep medium and small businesses in business and operating?

I do not think that that is a reasonable interpretation of the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see when they are published. For some years, including from 1959, the figures have been showing a rising trend. That is due to a number of factors, partly the fact that there are a larger number of companies registered. But most of the voluntary liquidations are owners' liquidations and do not imply that the firm concerned was insolvent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average yield per cent. which United States companies obtain on their original capital investment in Great Britain after five years and after 10 years.

The only information I have relates to 1965, when the average yield, after United Kingdom taxation, on the net assets of British affiliates of United States companies established in 1956 and in 1961 was 12½ per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. These figures are based on small numbers and are not necessarily representative.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonplace for American companies to draw 100 per cent. profit per annum on their original investment? Does not this make clear that the Government's policy of restricting credit for British investment in British industry is highly disadvantageous?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from the current Board of Trade forecasts, we expect that investment in this country will rise during the current year. I must emphasise that the figures which I have given are based on a very small sample.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the total annual cost in dollars to British-registered companies of their obligations to United States companies for know-how agreements, royalties and patent rights.

About 135 million dollars in 1967.

Does the Minister feel that the growth of American proprietary rights over British industry is contributing favourably to our balance of payments in the long run?

These royalties are in respect of information which is valuable to industry in this country. Forty per cent. of it is in respect of British subsidiaries of American companies. But the hon. Gentleman will know that, taking this country's royalty income and payments as a whole, in 1966, which is the latest year for which figures are available. we were in surplus, not in deficit.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the recent report of the Monopolies Commission on cellulosic man-made fibres.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibre.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now arrived at a decision on the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reject the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, I expect to receive the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study in the course of this month. It would be wrong to take major policy decisions about the industry, including decisions on the Monopolies Commission's report on cellulosic fibres, until I have completed a thorough examination of the industry's structure in the light of the Textile Council's study,—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.]

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general mystification that Sir Frank Kearton has so abruptly and arbitrarily fallen from grace? Would he therefore bear in mind the necessity for the Board of Trade to express a clear view at the earliest possible moment on its policy on reorganisation in the textile industry and which horse it will back, Courtaulds or I.C.I.?

The first part of the supplementary question is the most pure and mischievous nonsense. The Board of Trade is neither pro nor anti Courtaulds, I.C.I., Viyella or any other firm in the industry, as the hon. Gentle- man must know, and as Sir Frank Kearton knows perfectly well. In the study which we shall carry out we shall start from a position of neutrality.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is something odd about the Monopolies Commission's report being followed by such a deep and total silence on behalf of his Department lasting almost a year? I wish to say nothing unpleasant about Sir Frank Kearton, but he seems to have had a hypnotic and anaesthetising influence on the Department. Something should be said fairly soon.

The relations between Sir Frank Kearton and my Department seem to bear two quite different interpretations by two hon. Members opposite. The reason why I have not taken the view expressed in the Monopolies Commission's Report and why I have waited for the Textile Council's study is perfectly simple. I do not propose to take any more piecemeal decisions about the future of this industry. In the past few years, far too many unthought-out and piecemeal decisions have been taken about it, and I do not propose to repeat that mistake.

As the Textile Council reported as long ago as 1967 in its annual report that this study was being made, why is the Minister now expecting something different to come out of it, particularly bearing in mind that the members of the Committee which is doing the study are all active directors of companies which would be affected by such rationalisation?

My hon. Friend is not correct. The membership of the Textile Council also includes trade union representatives and independent members, who are quite firm and independent enough to make their own independent views known if they happen to disagree with the owners.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he receives the study from the Textile Council the House will have an opportunity to debate it?

The hon. Member knows that I can give no undertakings about debates, which are a matter for the Leader of the House. All I can do. which I now do, is to undertake that as soon as we can publish it we shall, so that the House can read it.

On a point of order. In view of the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), on Question No. 32, and his reference to a later Question on Edinburgh Airport, Mr. Speaker, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Questions Nos. 45 and 46?

The point of Order might have been raised a little later, but I have had no such request.

Will the Minister promise that at the earliest opportunity he will publish the Report, and will he say how soon that will be?

I have already said that I expect to receive it in a matter of days. I have not checked on how long publication will take, but as soon as I can publish it, I will do so.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that Courtaulds appear to be floating a large loan in Germany, and cannot something be done to persuade patriotic businessmen in Britain to put up money instead of going to Germany for it?

No, Sir, I am not aware of the fact which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Chairman of Courtaulds is in my view an extremely patriotic industrialist who has done great services to the country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) why he has declined to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fact that Fortes duty-free shop buys gin at 5s. 2½d. per bottle and sells it at 16s. 6d. per bottle, a profit of 217 per cent.;

These goods are sold only to people about to leave the United Kingdom. They are, in effect, therefore, exports and do not influence the domestic cost of living.

Is not the whole principle of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be obeyed by the British Airports Authority like everybody else? Is not the Minister of State aware that the Authority charges exorbitant prices for the concessions and then compels the concessionaires to charge equally exorbitant prices to the public?

This arrangement ensures that goods are cheaper to the consumer than they would be in the ordinary shops. It is an arrangement valuable for exports. It is rewarding to the public purse. It is one which seems acceptable to private enterprise. It seems fair enough to me.

Why should people who are leaving Britain for a short absence have this privilege while those who stay here have no such privilege? Could my hon. Friend arrange to have a duty-free shop in the House of Commons?

My wish is certainly to extend rather than restrict privileges, but that is not a matter for my Department.

Does the Minister of State consider it reasonable that the Authority should insist upon high prices in this manner? Is he aware that these prices compare very unfavourably with those at other airports throughout the world? Does he not consider that the whole matter is a disgrace?

I know the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the British Airports Authority and the persistent way in which he has been pursuing certain matters which he has previously believed to be wrong. I do not think that this is a disgrace. It is a proper management matter, and the present arrangement is beneficial to a number of people, including the public at large and all those who have an interest in the Authority as a public enterprise.

On a point of order. May I give notice that I regretfully will have to raise this matter on the Adjournment, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have now been made for British European Airways and Independent Airlines to take over routes formerly operated by Transglobe and British Eagle, now withdrawn from service; and whether he will make a statement concerning future policy for the operation of independent airlines.

Exemptions were granted last November to enable certain of British Eagle's domestic routes to be served pending decisions by the Air Transport Licensing Board on the applications now before them. Transglobe did not operate scheduled services. Future policy must await the Edwards report.

Notwithstanding the unfortunate occurrence with these two independent airlines, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he does not propose that his policies in future will be soured by this occurrence and that there will be no bias against the development of independent aviation?

They certainly will not be soured. There is no bias. We shall make our decisions as rapidly as possible after we have received the Edwards report.

What is the latest date by which the Government expect to receive the report of the Edwards Committee, and how soon after its receipt will it be published?

We still expect to have it by the end of March and we shall publish it as soon as possible after that date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) in view of the effect on air traffic control of lengthening the main runway at Glasgow Airport, what consideration he is giving to plans for this development;

No formal proposals for extending this runway have been received but we are ready to deal with the situation if, as a result of such an extension, the instrument landing system has to be moved. Glasgow is well equipped with navigational facilities and will continue to be so.

Does my hon. Friend's Answer mean that Glasgow Corporation will have the fullest power to develop its airport to meet the needs of Glasgow citizens equivalent to the powers which Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have in developing their municipal airports?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had a very satisfactory meeting with Glasgow Corporation last Friday. Certainly we want to see the development of this airport consistent with my right hon. Friend's statement of 22nd February last year which took into account all the facilities available in Scotland.