asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the high cost of construction, and high cost of operation and maintenance of major airports, unless used to capacity, if, in conjunction with the inquiry on the Third London Airport, he will institute a survey on the rôle of feeder line, and city centre to city centre short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing, air services in order to give advice to local authorities wishing to develop air transport facilities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to enourage the establishment of commercial vertical take-off and landing or short take-off and landing air services from city centre to city centre in this country.

The Board of Trade is associated in a great deal of work on the problems of developing acceptable VTOL and STOL aircraft. But, as it is likely to be a decade before services with such aircraft can make a significant contribution, it is too soon to contemplate a survey from which helpful advice could emerge.

Any guidance that can be given to a city such as Sheffield will be greatly appreciated. What evidence will the Minister give in connection with the needs of major towns and cities to the study of European VTOL studies now being carried out for the Ministry of Technology by Brian Colquhoun and Partners? What part is the Ministry taking in this study?

Our concern is with the operational possibilities of these aircraft. Very real difficulties have to be overcome, particularly in respect of noise. To the best of our knowledge, there are no scheduled helicopter services operating economically anywhere in the world. We are anxious to see the services developed and we shall give as much advice as we can.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many do not agree with him that it will be a decade before these services will be practicable? Does he know that a heliport is to be built in Dublin Docks before the end of this year? Will he encourage other cities with large dock sites, such as Liverpool, to establish heliports in their areas?

I hope these heliports will be developed more rapidly. We are considering not only helicopters but also more sophisticated forms of VTOL aircraft. We shall give help, but it must be borne in mind that helicopters have not generally proved economical.

Is not the hon. Gentleman showing a rather curious sense of priorities in starting a study of European VTOL sites without looking at British VTOL sites, indeed without any apparent financial support for an advanced study of fixed-wing VTOL aircraft?

The Ministry of Technology is concerned with the development of aircraft. Questions should be addressed to that Ministry. We are not dragging our feet. This is a practical technical problem. We want to get the aircraft as soon as possible, but obviously the most suitable sites will depend on the operational characteristics of the aircraft.

Will something be done to improve rail access to existing airports, such as Heathrow, where there is a goods development?

My hon. Friend mentions something which is very much in our minds.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the Gatwick Airport disaster of 5th January, 1969.

The Chief Inspector of Accidents will let us have his report as soon as possible and it will be published without delay. We shall, of course, be ready to act meanwhile on any information that comes to light with safety implications.

That is not very satisfactory. When is "as soon as possible"? When the Minister considers the report, will he also consider reinstating precision approach radar equipment or a modified version of it so that these facilities are in use as they are at London Airport; and, if not, why not?

In everybody's interests it is most important that this investigation should be thorough. It is proceeding just as fast as possible. As I have said previously, our review of the relative advantages of precision approach radar and I.L.S. must be without prejudice to the inspector's findings.

When the report is published, will the hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from Members of Parliament whose constituencies are in the neighbourhood of Gatwick and representatives of associations and residents who have been deeply concerned at the risks which they incur in the kind of circumstances which existed when this accident happened?

Yes. When the accident report is available I shall be very happy to discuss it with as many Members as wish to see me.

In view of what the Minister said in his reply about safety factors, can he assure the House that he is pressing on with the maximum speed with his review of precision approach radar and not waiting for action until he reads the report on the accident?

Certainly. This review is going on now. We should not wait for the accident report. I informed the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) yesterday that we are making some changes as regards the operation of foreign aircraft. These will again be without prejudice to the outcome of the inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will indicate which British civil airports are intended to handle the Concorde; and which airports are unsuitable for supersonic transport owing to noise level, at take-off.

It is not yet known which British airports other than Heathrow the operators of the Concorde will wish to serve. It has always been a design aim of Concorde that it should be no noisier than current large jets.

In view of the mischievous allegations which were recently published in the Washington Post and which are claimed to have originated in the F.A.A., can my hon. Friend indicate how soon we shall know the noise levels of Concorde and, which is perhaps equally to the point, how soon we shall know the noise levels of the Boeing SST?

I cannot give an answer to the second part, because we do not even know that there is to be one. I entirely agree that there has been a certain amount of mischievous comment which I think reflects a debate going on within the United States on the whole question of SST. The Concorde will be test-flown over a considerable period. We shall not know exactly what the noise levels will be until it has taken off in normal operating conditions.

Does the Minister of State agree that airports whose approach is over water would be eminently suitable for the operation of Concorde and that, therefore, for its destination in the Northwest of England Liverpool would be the best place?

Liverpool has many admirable qualities to recommend it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's views would be entirely shared by those who might be under the flight path.

In an effort to discount these rumours, will my hon. Friend say what talks he has had with the Americans as to what their attitude is likely to be? If he has had no such talks, will he forthwith get into consultation with the Americans so that we can find out something about what their attitude is likely to be and know a little more about it?

We need to know exactly what the noise levels are before discussions begin. Hypothetical exchanges would not help the situation. We shall be in the closest consultations with the Americans about the problems of SST noise, just as we are pressing ahead and taking a lead in dealing with aircraft noise from conventional aircraft.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which British civil airports are intended to handle jumbo jets during the next decade; and what facilities will be provided at each of those airports to facilitate the movement of their passengers.

Operators of these aircraft are unlikely to use airports other than Heathrow, Prestwick and probably Manchester for some time to come. In consultation with the airlines concerned, the authorities owning these aerodromes are making the necessary consequent arrangements.

What work is being done in Britain comparable to that which was recently disclosed by Air France? Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of using Liverpool as well as Manchester for this purpose and perhaps permitting some of the Customs formalities to be carried out on the fast train services to London?

There are two factors governing whether jumbo jets operate from one airport rather than from another. The first is the question of passenger handling, whether the terminal facilities are adequate. Second, there is the question of length of runway and whether it is suited to take the weight of aircraft involved. Many discussions have taken place about these matters. The B.A.A., in particular, and also, I think, Manchester Airport have put in a good deal of investment to deal with the arrival of jumbo jets.

If it is possible that Manchester will eventually be used for the handling of these giant aircraft, will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Manchester airport authorities on the question of the deplorable access roads to that airport? It is a most difficult airport even to find.

We cannot usurp the proper authority of municipal airports. A decision has been made that they should be able to assume responsibility. This is very much a matter for them, but I am sure they will note what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Edwards Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish the Edwards Committee Report.

About the end of April.

How soon thereafter will the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper? Will it be available before the Bill to extend B.E.A. borrowing powers comes before the House? Second, how long is it likely to be before legislation to implement other recommendations of the Edwards Committee can be brought in?

I hope to issue a White Paper after reasonable time has elapsed for consultations on the part of the Government and general discussion in the aviation Press and elsewhere. As to the timing of the White Paper, I prefer to leave that at this stage because none of us yet knows how complicated or controversial the recommendations of the Edwards Committee will be. I should prefer not to answer off the cuff about the relationship between the timing of any White Paper and the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Perhaps I may write to him about it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that if, as we hope, the Committee proposes a positive licensing system, such a system, if adopted, would lead to the encouragement of British air transport not only by the corporations but by independent operators also?

That is an interesting reflection, but I should prefer not to comment on what the report might or might not say until it has been produced.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to stimulate the development of domestic air services.

The initiative for developing services rests primarily with the operators, but we shall be reviewing our policy in the light of the Edwards Committee report.

Is it not true that the one major barrier to the development of domestic air services is the absence of any co-ordinated airports policy?

No, I do not think that that is the fundamental reason. The principal difficulty is the volume of traffic and the cost of operations. Routes in this country are short, and most are not profitable. Obviously, this is an obstacle to their development.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the monopoly services of B.E.A. between London and Manchester? This route is the Cinderella for equipment, bad time-keeping and the way in which passengers receive little consideration. Another service could operate, and then there would be really efficient service—and there is the traffic.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, without necessarily accepting it. Decisions about dual designation depend on much larger factors, including whether there can be economic operation for more than one airline.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made towards the establishment of a national airports plan.

We are considering how best to formulate future policy for airport development, but we must take account of the report of the Edwards Committee before final decisions.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is an essential part of his duty not only to discourage airports in some places but actively to encourage them in others?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for planning.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation have adequately filled the gap in North Atlantic services created by his action in limiting Scandinavian Airline System flights through Prestwick; what consultations he has had with the Governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

It is by its own commercial choice that Scandinavian Airlines System operates fewer North Atlantic services through Prestwick than it is permitted to. B.O.A.C. has increased its North American services at Prestwick in recent years and United States and Canadian airline services have also increased.

Since an understanding was reached in December, 1965, I have neither received nor made any request for consultations on this topic with the Governments concerned.

Is it not the case that, at the moment, something like 80 international services are using Prestwick airport? If my hon. Friend and Prestwick want to increase that number, why does not he try to get S.A.S. to resume the services it discarded rather than direct medium-haul services making for Glasgow Airport into Prestwick?

I am familiar with my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy of the cause of Glasgow, which we have de bated on several occasions. [Interruption.] I am sure we would—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you restrain this crowd of hooligans here so that I can hear what is being said?

Order.

I think that S.A.S. has found it not worth operating as many flights as it intended because it faced a great deal of competition, including the excellent services provided by B.O.A.C.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Corporation of Glasgow and British European Airways with a view to promoting direct air services between Glasgow Airport and the Continent of Europe.

We have had no such consultations.

Will my hon. Friend, then, try to get Glasgow Corporation's view of his action last week in directing medium-haul services between Glasgow and Italy into Prestwick, in view of the fact that Prestwick is supposed to be the international and not the medium-haul airport for Scotland?

I am sure that Glasgow Corporation is capable of expressing its views without being asked for them by me, but I should be glad to hear any representations which it may choose to make.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that it is the policy of the British Airports Authority that there will be no significant improvement in the noise level at major airports in the next 15 years, if he will dismiss the Chairman of the Authority.

I know of no such policy on the part of the British Airports Authority, in whose Chairman I may say that I have complete confidence. Indeed, there could be no such policy since under Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, the control of noise at the Authority's airports rests with the Board of Trade.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his confidence is misplaced, and that in his evidence to the Roskill Commission the Chairman of the British Airports Authority specifically said that there would be no improvement in aircraft noise at Heathrow in the next 15 years? If this proves to be the case, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision, and ask himself whether such complacency on the subject of aircraft noise is not sufficient reason to raise the question whether the Chairman is fit to hold his position?

I must take exception to what my hon. Friend has said. I know the Chairman of the British Airports Authority extremely well, as do many hon. Members on both sides. He is a most capable and dedicated public servant. He is allowed, as far as I am concerned, to express any personal views that he wishes on the question of aircraft noise, or any other subject under the sun. But I reiterate that, at the end of the day, policy on aircraft noise, as opposed to anyone's prophecies, is a matter for the Government, not for anyone else.

Is not it most regrettable that a question like this should appear on the Order Paper against a chairman of an independent authority who has rendered enormous service to this country for the last 25 years? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will refute the allegation in the question.

My hon. Friend is a very independent Member of this House, and he has the right to put down any Question on any subject which he chooses. My duty is simply to make it perfectly clear that I disagree with the implication of his Question and have full confidence in Mr. Masefield.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the guiding criteria and reasons which have brought about a decision to refer Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission, and not refer the Cadbury/Schweppes merger; and what steps he will now take to clarify and explain these criteria to industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his decision to refer the proposed mergers of Unilever/Allied Breweries and Rank/De La Rue to the Monopolies Commission.

The 1965 Act lays upon me no obligation to give or explain such criteria, or to make statements on particular merger references. Nevertheless I am considering whether I can give some general guidance on the way our decisions are reached, though it would not, I think, be desirable to give the reasons why a particular merger has or has not been referred to the Commission.

I thank the President of the Board of Trade for confirming Press reports that he is doing this, and for his categorical statement. When does he expect to be in a position to give these guides? What form will they take? Will they be in a White Paper?

I prefer not to commit myself on any of those points. This is a very intricate question. None of this is laid down in the 1965 Act. It is something on which, I judge from outside debate, there is no clear consensus of view at the moment. I would prefer not to commit myself to a particular timetable.

Will my right hon. Friend give a definition of "conglomerate"? Would he agree that not all conglomerates are necessarily bad, particularly when executives of the companies concerned have proved to be good? Is it the intention in the case of all proposed conglomerate-type mergers to refer them to the Monopolies Commission when they are over £5 million?

On the first part of that question, I would prefer not to give an exact definition of "conglomerate". My hon. Friend is as capable as I am of giving a definition. On the second part, I do not think all conglomerates are necessarily bad, but the conglomerate merger movement raises questions of interest to all parties and all sections of public opinion. On the third part, I do not intend to refer automatically all conglomerate mergers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a White Paper when he has considered the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study and the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Further Rationalisation in the Textile Industry and further considered the Monopolies Commission Report on Cellulosic Fibres.

I will consider this suggestion when I have had the opportunity to examine the results of these three inquiries as a whole.

In view of the importance and the far-reaching nature of the decisions which are to be taken by the Government, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his proposals should be published and the basis on which they are reached given before they are implemented by administrative action?

I would certainly think that in principle. I do not think that we could possibly take a major decision affecting the future of the textile industry without discussion in the House. It was only on the precise form of some publication that I was guarding myself.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to make available immediately on printing the Report of the Study of the Textile Council? Will he undertake to make copies available to hon. Members, at least to those from the Lancashire area?

Publication of the Report of the Textile Council Productivity and Efficiency Study is strictly a matter for the Textile Council and not for the Government. I understand that publication is to be next month and that copies will be made available free in the Library of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of his examination of the full accounts of the banks, he proposes to withdraw the exemptions they enjoy as to the disclosure of their full reserves.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his examination of the full accounts of banking and discount companies; and whether he will now require full disclosure of reserves and profit and loss accounts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers to ensure that banks should now publish their accounts.

My examination of the full accounts of the banks has not yet reached the point at which I can decide whether or not to continue the present exemptions.

This exercise has taken a rather long time. As this year the joint stock banks produced profit increases all within 1 or 2 per cent. of each other, it strains the credulity of the investor, and, as the banks themselves favour fuller disclosure, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

I am conscious of all the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advances, but in an Answer I gave about 14 months ago I gave a pledge to the banks that I would examine their full accounts over a period before reaching a decision. I now have the full accounts of the banks for 1967, and hope to complete my examination of those accounts in the next few weeks. I have the accounts of some banks for 1968 and hope to complete that examination shortly afterwards. As soon as possible thereafter I hope to reach a decision.

With the inadequate cooperation that the Government are getting from our banking system, is it not time to ensure that these annual accounts are no longer utterly incomplete and positively misleading? When will my right hon. Friend get tough and let the people know the truth about our banks?

I take the points which my hon. Friend mentions. I am strongly in favour, wherever possible, of letting people know the truth. This is an extremely complex subject. I must have time to examine the banks' accounts properly. As soon as possible after that I shall come to a view.

I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to tell the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that this Government are getting much more support from the banks than they deserve. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that a number of assurances given by him and by the Minister of State about timing have proved to be a little optimistic? I am thinking particularly of the decision on the report on cellulosic fibres, among others. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to commit himself to any time by which he thinks he will have made a decision?

I would not accept the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the distribution of blame for any friction that may or may not have occurred between the Government and the banking system. On the substance of the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, I would prefer not to commit myself to a date, but I am very much aware of the strong feelings that are held in parts at any rate of both sides of the House on this question and I certainly do not intend to allow this question to drag on indefinitely.

Why need my right hon. Friend wait for the 1968 accounts? For the purpose of his exercise, are not the previous year's accounts sufficient, and will he agree that the old arguments against publishing the accounts no longer apply? Second, in view of the recent Government Measures which have helped to put substantially more money in the pockets of the banks, is it not right that we should at least know what that amount of money is?

As to whether an examination of the 1968 accounts will or will not be necessary, I prefer to wait to see what the results are of our examination of the 1967 accounts. It may be possible to come to a view on the basis of that one year alone. As to the more general questions which my hon. Friend raises, I am well aware of the view which he holds on the matter, and I am not out of sympathy with it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on his policy towards mergers and take-overs.

My policy continues to be based on the principles of the 1965 Act. But, as I said in a recent speech at Manchester, of which copies have been placed in the Library, I am considering whether I can give more information about the way in which we use the discretion which the law confers upon us.

In that excellent speech, my right hon. Friend meditated on the dangers of merger fever. Have those meditations now been translated into positive proposals to deal with the situation?

No, Sir. I think that meditation is in itself a positively desirable state of mind, and, as far as I am concerned, it is for the moment still continuing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his meditation leads him to the important conclusion that too much in the nature of activities of a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—a meddlesome Mattie—by his Department would be wholly injurious to British industry, he would be well advised to meditate at greater length and stay out of the arena?

Order. There is no need to repeat a metaphor.

The hon. Gentleman's language was a little mystifying. As regards the substance of what he said, he should recall that his party—I believe that he was in the House at the time— did not vote against the 1965 Act which lays down the broad principles of monopolies and mergers policy, which we are still continuing.

Has not the President of the Board of Trade noted the almost universal expression of view in the debate on Friday, 7th March, about the ridiculous situation in which the biggest merger which has taken place in this country in recent months—the G.E.C.-etc. merger—never reached the Monopolies Commission but was dealt with by an entirely different and, in the view of many, entirely unsatisfactory procedure?

I read that debate with great interest and was sorry that, being then in Latin America, I could not take it. I read with particular interest the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have always held the view that that merger was in a different category from other mergers which we have referred, first, because it was strongly supported not only by the I.R.C. but by the bulk of independent opinion, and, second, because there were circumstances in terms of the buyers of the goods produced by the merged firm which appeared to me and to my colleagues to give sufficient guarantees against any excessive monopoly power.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he now proposes to take to cut the imports of coin-operated gramophones, record players and amusement machines, now amounting to more than £5 million a year for 1967 and 1968.

As I explained in Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 4th December, these products are covered by the import deposit scheme. I do not think that additional special restriction on imports of particular classes of products would be justified.—[Vol. 774, c. 482.]

In our sticky balance of payments position, is it not crazy that we waste a lot of hard currency in this way? Does my hon. Friend recall—he was not in the House at the time—the memorable statement that the language of priorities is the religion of Socialism? When will he put that into effect?

I recall that memorable statement, even though I was not in the House at the time. My hon. Friend will realise that the problem of inessential imports leads one also to consider the problem of exports from this country which other countries might consider inessential and on which they might place restrictions if we placed restrictions on theirs.

That reply and the one given to me previously are quite unsatisfactory. Is my hon. Friend aware that these imports are growing each year? Is it not a terrible waste of time and money to have "one-armed bandits" coming in when we could import things which are really necessary at home?

I agree that these imports are growing. On the other hand, the exports to which I referred, which other countries might regard as inessential, are fortunately growing, too.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now introduce legislation to amend the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1968 in order to meet the criticisms made by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.

An order to this effect was made on 11th March (S.I., 1969, No. 315).

Will the Minister take it that that development will be welcomed?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the result of the further inquiries which his Department has made into the position of the South African holiday advertisements and the Trade Descriptions Act.

Inquiries have confirmed that the body which sponsored the advertisement to which my hon. Friend referred on 11th February did not make that statement in the course of a trade or business, and therefore could not have offended against the Trade Descriptions Act. If my hon. Friend has reason to think that any other person has committed an offence, this can be brought to the attention of the appropriate local weights and measures authority for due consideration.

Are not these South African holiday advertisements quite dishonest? Non-whites are barred from taking their holidays in South Africa. In view of that, surely there is a clear infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act?

We have looked at the terms of the Act very carefully. Whether any advertising agency or newspaper involved in the publication of this statement may have committed an offence against the Act is a rather different question which it would be right for the local authority to consider in the first instance. If my hon. Friend wishes, I will draw it to its attention.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he refuses to allow the import of oil from Rumania.

The question of taking Rumanian oil cannot be separated from an acceptable settlement of outstanding British claims against the Rumanian Government, including claims by British oil companies.

Is the Minister saying, therefore, that we do not trade with countries that have expropriated British assets without compensation? Is not it in the interests of our trading position that discussions should now be initiated with Rumania to see whether an arrangement cannot be made after all these years?

I am certainly not saying the first thing the hon. Gentleman suggested. I would very much welcome discussions which would lead to the settlement of the claims. That would be beneficial to the trade of both countries.

As the Government are exporting, for example, the B.A.C. 111 to Rumania, and no doubt wish to expand their trade with Rumania, is it not completely illogical to exclude from trade one of the obvious commodities the Rumanians can sell to get hard currency?

The claims in question are very large. We judge that it is right, in an attempt to get the settlement of these justified claims, to take this attitude in respect of the import of Rumanian oil.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the Committee to examine the possibilities of a National Exhibition Centre can be expected; and if he will make a statement.

The Committee referred to is an advisory body which is not required to present a formal report. At this stage I cannot usefully add to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 12th February.—[Vol. 777; c. 1491–1500.]

My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the importance of an exhibition centre of this type. Is he aware that the present exhibition centres being provided are inadequate to our export needs? Can he speed things up so that we get a National Exhibition Centre as soon as possible?

Like my hon. Friend, I am strongly aware of the importance of getting the National Exhibition Centre. There are genuine difficulties in terms of its location, the finance and the type of organisation to run it, but, again, I suspect like my hon. Friend, I am becoming very impatient at the delay in achieving this, and I entirely share his views about the need for haste.

Will the Minister bear in mind that if we are to have a National Exhibition Centre it should be in the centre of London, or somewhere like that? It would be quite useless to put it 15 or 16 miles out—for example, Northolt is suggested—because it is important to business men and other visitors coming to London.

No, Sir. I do not think the experience of exhibition centres in other countries, many of which I have visited, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, supports the view that they should be or can in practice conceivably be in the centre of large cities. The site at Northolt, which is now the favoured site, and which I hope will be the final one, is just about the right distance and the right size to allow us to produce a centre that is big enough.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a Question down tomorrow that will give the interesting possibility of the establishment of an exhibition site at the old Avro factory at Yeadon in Yorkshire?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I like to consider all interesting possibilities, but this has come into this picture at a rather late stage.

Do we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the intention is to close Northolt Airport?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the independent research commissioned by his Department into aspects of the economic effects of advertising and a list of the firms involved.

It is hoped to commission the first study, which will be into the effects of advertising on the structure of industries, within the next few months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not fast enough progress? While we thank her for that reply, we ask for a more speedy effect on the advertising industry by the introduction of the report at the earliest possible moment.

We all want to see the report cover a very wide field. It is essential that we should get the terms of reference right. It will take about 18 months to complete after it has been commissioned

How much is the report going to cost?

Since it has not yet been decided who will report, it is rather difficult to tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what import substitution results have been achieved since the Prime Minister's statement in January 1968, especially in agriculture; and what further measures he proposes for obtaining imports substitution including antidumping orders.

It is not possible to put a figure to the import saving which has taken place over the whole range of imports since the Prime Minister's statement. As regards agriculture, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 26th February. As far as further measures are concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him in answer to a similar Question on 11th December last.—[Vol. 778; c. 1705–6; Vol. 775, c. 143.]

Will the Board of Trade Ministers try to understand the genuine concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House seeking to aid balance of payments matters by establishing what progress is being made in import-substitution? Where can we get the figures, if not from the Board of Trade?

I understand the concern in all sections of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House on 26th February that the increase in home food consumption has been met to a large extent by the additional production of products which we can grow. There are many other examples known to the House of assistance given to import substitution. One major example recently considered by the House was the aluminium smelter.

In import substitution, is the Board of Trade doing anything to encourage British manufacturers of juke boxes so that they can be substituted for the American products?

That is a very interesting question. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many unit trusts have been approved by his Department; and whether he will publish particulars in the Board of Trade Gazette, together with the aggregate sums, cumulatively, vested in Board of Trade-authorised unit trusts.

There are 207 authorised unit trusts. The names of the trusts, the management companies and the trustees are published annually in Particulars of Dealers in Securities and of Unit Trusts. The total of the funds of the authorised unit trusts is published monthly in Financial Statistics.

Would the hon. Gentleman realise that unit trusts in the aggregation were responsible in 1968 for nine times as much, in terms of sums invested and remaining invested, as National Savings? Would not it be appropriate, now that unit trusts are the major instrument for collecting small savings, to publish the outcome monthly, not annually, so that the progress may be watched by everybody interested in savings of all descriptions?

I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard. The Answer was that the names of authorised trusts are published annually but the financial aspect in which he is interested is published monthly in Financial Statistics.

Having regard to the importance of unit trusts, to which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has rightly drawn attention, will my hon. Friend pay further attention to the matter I have raised with him in correspondence concerning the contributions made by companies in which the unit trusts invest to the funds of the Conservative Party?

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject. As I have pointed out to him, one of the consequences of the 1967 Companies Act is that we now know which companies make political contributions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant industrial development certificates in London, the Midlands and the South East of England for the rebuilding of existing outdated factories in order to increase efficiency where no increase in employment is involved.

The Board of Trade is normally prepared to grant industrial development certificates in such cases.

Is the hon. Lady aware that that reply will be received with some satisfaction? Will she give some publicity to the fact?

I should be delighted to give publicity to the fact that the Board of Trade is anxious to do anything which will assist the modernisation and equipment of industry. It is not this side of the House that seeks to misrepresent i.d.c. policy.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this is really the question of the allocation of resources, which are very unevenly distributed at present? Will she, therefore, offer the owners of these outdated factories development certificates for new factories in South Wales, Scotland and the North of England?

I shall be delighted to see as many industrialists as possible who are looking for modern factories moving into them—and, of course, in the development areas if we can so encourage them. It is a source of great pleasure to me that we now have only one empty advance factory in the whole of Wales.

Does the hon. Lady think that she has said anything new this afternoon? The positive emphasis she gave in that Answer is very encouraging. Is it a new development in any way, or is she relying perhaps excessively on a verbal definition of "outdated"? Are we to understand in answer to my hon. Friend's Question that factories which require rebuilding to accept modernised plants are given i.d.c.s for that purpose?

I am not enunciating any new policy, and I am grateful for the chance to make this clear. The Board of Trade has always said that where modernisation plans could be brought forward that did not include an increase in employment—and this is one of the vital points—we should obviously be prepared to issue industrial development certificates in those circumstances. But there is a completely schizoid approach to this matter among hon. Members opposite. Those who come from development areas say that we should be doing more, while those from the Midlands, particularly the West Midlands, and the South-East say that we are doing all we can to hold up the modernisation of industry, which is simply not so.

However satisfied or dissatisfied development areas might be about the allocation of certificates, is the hon. Lady aware that the new towns, particularly those based upon the old conurbations, feel that they are not having their proper priority?

I do not accept that. When development areas have continuingly high unemployment figures, it is extremely difficult to provide enough movement in industry always to be able to match up exactly the amount of employment and the houses available in the new towns. The hon. Gentleman should speak to some of his friends in the conurbations and get them to move to new towns. We should be pleased to see that happen.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake a study of the extent to which the export of British goods depends on the amount of imports of agricultural products from foreign countries; and if he will make a statement.

The likely effect on United Kingdom exports is taken into account in formualting the Government's agricultural policy. We shall be considering in the context of the recent recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the practicability of making a more precise study of this matter.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that to most people the quality and delivery of our exports is much more relevant than the amount of imports we take from other countries when these matters are being decided upon by foreign countries?

This is a vital point. There is no doubt that delivery dates are of enormous importance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the permitted rate of industrial development in the West Mid lands; and if he will make a statement.

As I told my hon. Friend on 12th February, the approval of i.d.cs for 11·5 million sq. ft. of industrial space in the West Midlands in 1968 combined with a level of unemployment below the national average does not in any way suggest that industrial growth in the West Midlands is being unduly restricted—[Vol. 777, c. 305–6.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the less honourable Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "With draw."]—are trying to create the impression that the Government have stopped industrial development in the West Midlands? Is that not odd in view of the fact that—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that any other hon. Members is not honourable or is dishonourable?

It would be out of order to suggest that one hon. Member is not honourable but charges may be levelled against a group.

Is this allegation not odd in view of the fact that, despite the Government's regional policies, which we in the West Midlands support, more industrial development certificates are going to that area now than ever went there under the Tories?

I am grateful for those remarks. I am fascinated by the schizoid attitude of hon. Members opposite towards this matter. They suggest one thing in the West Midlands and elsewhere and something totally different in the development areas.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the amount of the investment grants paid during the most recent period in respect of the printing of posters and circulars and of the blending of butter, respectively.

Information about the payment of grants is not available in this detail.

What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the contribution of these two industries to exporting or import saving? Does he really think that they are more deserving of investment grants than other industries which do not get them, such as the scrap metal and waste paper recovery industries?

I cannot give that figure without notice. The dividing line in the Industrial Development Act is in respect of manufacturing industry. These are manufacturing processes in respect of which, therefore, the grants are given.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of some of us on this side of the House, the indiscriminate use of investment grants represents the biggest hole in the economic bucket? Speaking for myself, I strongly urge the Government to take the closest look into the way these grants are being grossly misused by large sections of industry.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's opinions in this matter. I do not agree with him. The evidence is—and we heard it on 4th February, when he took a brief part in the debate—that investment grants are a major incentive to investment in manufacturing industries. But we are conducting an inquiry, as I said on that occasion, which will attempt to assess the effectiveness of this investment incentive.

While many of us would agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), will the Minister of State recognise that schizophrenia is not confined to one side of the House?

I think the danger is when schizophrenia appears in an individual rather than in a group.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he is issuing to British industry about exporting to Hungary in view of the economic reorganisation introduced there last year.

Exports to Hungary have risen encouragingly in recent years. They should continue to do well, provided British suppliers remain competitive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that opportunities for selling to Hungary have greatly increased with the increase in the number of organisations in Hungary now allowed to buy direct from foreign countries? Will she see that this information is given to British firms so that they can increase our exports to Hungary even further?

We are well aware of the opportunities and are delighted to note that the economic reforms will begin to take effect over a period of years. We hope that British industry will be encouraged by the opportunities and will benefit from them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the scope of the industrial development grant available to the leather industry for effluent cleansing processes to allow it to be transferred to the appropriate local authority so that the processing of domestic and industrial effluent might be undertaken in the most economic manner.

No, Sir. Evidence has not been produced which would, in my view, justify the radical amendment to the Industrial Development Act which this would require.

Is it not illogical to offer to an employer grants towards the installation of cleansing plant which, if it could be transferred to a local authority, would be able to be used as a district plant, making it much more economic?

Under the Industrial Development Act payments must be made to persons who both provide the eligible assets and use them in the course of their business. There might be an argument for reviewing this in this case if evidence were produced that this rule has led to uneconomic investment in effluent plant by the leather industry. I have no such evidence, and pending that I will certainly stick to the original Answer.

Is the Minister aware that the leather industry has been encouraged to set up its own individual plant for disposal of trade effluent so that it gets the grant? Does he not agree that it could be much more economically achieved by the local authority if it had the plant?

It is evidence of that particular proposition that I should like to see. We have asked for such evidence but it has not been provided.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the investment in manufacturing industry since 1966 which has arisen directly from the introduction of investment grants.

The influence cannot be separately measured.

Does the Minister realise that the capital expenditure between 1966–67 decreased in manufacturing industry, and decreased again between 1967–68? How does the Minister hold to the statements he made earlier today, that investment grants are a major incentive to increasing investments in manufacturing industry?

The decline in manufacturing investment during that particular cycle was a great deal less than in the previous cycle. This is very probably attributable to the 5 per cent. supplement allowed in 1967–68. It is interesting that the C.B.I. for example, although it has made it clear that it does not support the investment grant system, nevertheless asked for a continuation of the supplement to encourage investment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many investment schemes have been initiated under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, by competent authorities—or incompetent authorities?

This is an entirely different question. Speaking from memory, I think that there are two, one in respect of the computer industry and one in respect of the aluminium smelter industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given to industry during each of the last five years for the construction of plants for the disposal of trade effluent.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is it not a fact that in many of these cases it has been far more economical to have joint schemes between industry and the local authority? Why is it that industrial schemes attract a grant but local authority joint schemes do not?

The justification lies solely in the law. It would be possible for the Board of Trade to make a grant in such circumstances, but it is unfortunately impossible under the existing law for local authorities to enter into partnership in these schemes with private enterprise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Anglo-South African trade.

Our exports to South Africa were £261 million in 1968, slightly more than in 1967 although South Africa's total imports were slightly down. Our imports from South Africa were £271 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence to show that Her Majesty's Government's policy of not supplying defence arms to South Africa is having an adverse effect on our trade? What is being done positively to ensure participation of British firms in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries of South Africa, which are entirely new and important developments?

I take it that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question refers to the fact that this Government, like other Governments, is acceding to a United Nations decision on the prohibition of arms to South Africa. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the facts of the matter are completely in contradiction to what he said. As my Answer made clear, last year Britain actually increased her share of total South African imports. On the third part of his question, a great many measures are being taken both by B.N.E.C. Africa and by the Government to encourage the kind of trade that he has in mind.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper for the Government to pursue their policy of not supplying arms of any kind to the South African régime at the moment and that, contrary to the expectations of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government have not suffered as a result of that policy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that the policy is right and in line with United Nations policy. He is also right in saying, as the Answer which I gave demonstrates with figures, that this country has suffered nothing from this policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that none of the exports to which this Question refers do find their way into Rhodesia?

The Question refers not to exports but to the general question of Anglo-South African trade. The answer I gave shows clearly that in 1968, as against 1967, contrary to what has been constantly prophesied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the British share of South African imports actually increased.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the existing law provides adequate protection for the public from the effects of inertia selling; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that persons cannot be required to pay for goods sent through the post which the recipients have not ordered and do not want.

As the law already stands, people cannot be required to pay for unsolicited goods which they do not choose to accept, and this should be clearly understood.

Why should the public be put to trouble, expense, and ordeal by solicitor's letter in respect of these goods which they have not ordered? Is it not time that the onus was put very firmly on the firms which choose to operate in this way, just within the law? If they choose to send out goods in this fashion, ought they not to do so at their own risk and cost?

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. The difficulty is in framing legal safeguards of the sort that he has suggested. I would be happy to look at this again.

Is not the real need for publicity to explain to members of the public that they have no obligations in this matter, and that they need not pay any attention to demands for payment, when they have taken no steps to indicate a desire for the goods?

We believe that if people knew their rights even more clearly in this matter they would be protected. We have deliberately put a reference to this type of selling in our latest publicity leaflet on the Trade Descriptions Act, and I hope that people will firmly refuse to have anything to do with goods sent to them in this manner.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations have been made to the Government of Australia about their import restrictions on United Kingdom knitwear;

There was some recovery in the sterling value of our exports of high quality knitwear to Australia between 1967 and 1968. No Government-to-Government representations have been made since the quota restrictions were introduced in December, 1967, but it remains our hope that if the Australian Tariff Board decides that continued protection is necessary, this can be so devised as to bear more lightly on high-quality supplies.

Would it not be useful to make Government-to-Government representations on this matter, and suggest to the Australians that their objectives could be met if they exempted from their quota restrictions the import of pure wool knitwear, which is above the value of 15 Australian dollars per 1b. weight?

As I indicated to the hon. Member, we are bringing to the attention of the Australian authorities, through the Tariff Board, that such a method of discrimination, in favour of high quality knitwear, should be used. These representations are open to be made by the British industry because the Tariff Board is an independent authority. I hope that the Government will be able to find some means of making informal representations.

I would remind the House that ahead of us we have two Private Notice Questions, three important Statements, a Motion of Censure, the Air Force Estimates and two Bills. Conciseness in debate and questions will help us today.