asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the contributions to exports and to import saving made in the manufacturing process of producing cocoa from cocoa beans and the waste paper recovery industry, respectively.

United Kingdom exports of cocoa, chocolate and other preparations containing cocoa last year amounted to £14·9 million. It is not possible to estimate the import saving made in the manufacturing process of producing cocoa from cocoa beans which is but one part of a complex food manufacturing process. In 1968, waste paper to the value of about £1·9 million was exported. As far as the contribution to import saving by the waste paper industry is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 12th March this year.—[Vol. 779, c. 298.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of my Question has been largely overtaken in that investment grants and S.E.T. repayments are now to be made in respect of wastepaper processes? On what basis do the decisions about making an investment grant differ from the bases on which decisions are made about the repayment of S.E.T?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's purpose had been overtaken by the decision announced a few days ago. The essential characteristic of investment grants is that they are given in respect of manufacturing processes and manufacturing industries which produce a substantial change in the article concerned. The legislation governing S.E.T. is different.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to control restrictive practices by the organisers of international exhibitions in this country.

I understand that the Question arises out of applications for space at commercially organised exhibitions. We are not satisfied that there is any case for legislation in this field.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Labex International Exhibition at Earls Court in March when a constituent of mine making scientific equipment, Silver and Sons Ltd., of Hampton, owing to some dispute was not able to exhibit, although the firm had an excellent export trade? Was not that a restraint on trade?

I am aware of this case, about which the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my Department. I have examined it fully and I am satisfied that there is no cause for me to intervene; nor are there any grounds on which I could reasonably do so. These are matters for the commercial decision of the commercial undertakers of these exhibitions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an undertaking to introduce legislation to reform company law during Session 1970–71.

No, Sir. It is too early to say what legislation will or will not be possible during the 1970–71 Session.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a promise was solemnly given in the House and on several occasions upstairs in Standing Committee that during the lifetime of this Parliament another Companies Bill would be brought before the House, and that it was on that basis that we discussed the whole of the 1967 Bill? Is this another promise which is now about to be broken?

I have no doubts that a Labour Government will be responsible for legislation in the 1970–71 Session—[Interruption.]—refreshed, no doubt, in the latter part of the year by a strong new mandate from the electors. Although it is true, as the hon. Member says, that hopes were expressed—I have not checked the language, but I accept the hon. Member's interpretation of what was said during what we call the part one Jenkins Bill—part two of Jenkins, as we have come to refer to it, is immensely long and complicated. Our system of passing legislation in this House is not, perhaps, as up-to-date and modern as it ought to be in all respects, and I cannot yet say what other claims may be made upon legislative time in the 1970–71 Session.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the scope of the study of the effectiveness of the investment grants system which he is undertaking; when the examination will be completed; and if he will publish the results.

I hope that it will be possible to examine the more significant questions relating to the effectiveness of the investment grant system. I would not expect to get quick answers to such complex questions and I have, therefore, placed no time limit on its completion. I will consider the desirability of publication when I have had an opportunity to see how far it has proved possible to overcome the difficulties which this sort of study must encounter and to arrive at informative answers to the questions posed.

As these grants now cost over £400 million a year, and as there is widespread and growing doubt about their effectiveness, could not the Minister at least undertake to ensure that this study is pursued with maximum urgency, even if he cannot put a time limit to it today?

I will certainly ensure that the study is conducted as quickly as is possible in the circumstances. There is, I think, increasing evidence that the investment grant system is an effective way of creating new investment.

Before the Government come to any conclusion about how to finance the assistance to the intermediate areas which was announced last week, will the results of this study be available to them?

No. The study will obviously take some time and the other decisions will have to be made before these results are available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why investment in manufacturing industry is less buoyant than investment in the service and distributive trades in periods of cyclical downturn.

One of the main reasons is that demand for the output of manufacturing industry is more variable.

While it is gratifying that investment in manufacturing held up better in the last cycle in 1967–68 than in the previous cycle, would not the Minister agree that it does not follow that it is worth spending £473 million a year to achieve that objective when other important objectives have to be given up and it involves the crushing burden of discrimination against the service industries?

I do not understand that question. Before 1964, the previous Government were prepared to spend large sums of money by way of investment allowances and free depreciation on creating incentives to investment. We are doing the same thing in the more limited sector of manufacturing industry. This makes a valuable contribution to the economy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the level of investment by manufacturing industry in 1969 and 1970 compared with 1968.

Manufacturers' forecasts provided to the Board of Trade at the end of last year indicated a rise in investment of between 10 and 15 per cent. in real terms between 1968 and 1969 with a further increase between 1969 and 1970.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have recently been reports and assessments by independent economists that the upward trend at the end of last year was already slowing down markedly? Does the information available to him indicate the same trend?

No, Sir. We have no evidence to support what the hon. Member is saying. I should say that our last investment intention survey is supported by the most recent surveys carried out by the C.B.I. and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, and is also strongly supported by the figures for i.d.c. approvals and the current figures of orders in the engineering industry as a whole, and in machine tools.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we very much hope that he is right. Is he also aware that year after year his Department's manufacturing trend forecasts have proved very optimistic indeed?

It is obvious that any attempt to make a forecast based on replies given to us by manufacturers contains a considerable possibility of error. All I can say is that the other indications available to us in this case support the view that 1969 and 1970 will be years of strongly rising investment.

In view of the disturbing remarks of Mr. Catherwood about the level of investment in this country, can my right hon. Friend say what the figures will be, in real terms, in 1969 compared with 1961—a comparison which Mr. Catherwood has made recently, to the disadvantage of more recent years?

I would have hoped for notice of that question. I shall gladly give the figures if I am given notice. I agree with my hon. Friend and with Mr. Catherwood that for 20 years the level of investment in this country has been much too low. That is one reason why we have persistently run into balance of payments crises every time we have had a period of economic expansion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain's share of Indian imports dropped from 19 per cent. in 1960–61 to 8 per cent. in 1967–68 while the European Economic Community increased its exports to India; and, whether, in view of the fact that about half the total overseas investment in India is British, he will institute an inquiry into this country's diminishing share of India's imports.

Contributory causes of this decline include the increase in other countries' aid and India's need for food and other goods that we cannot supply. Factors such as these are outside our control, but we are examining what scope there may be for action to improve the situation.

Is not the Minister aware that during the fiscal year 1968–69 our share of Indian imports fell to 6 per cent.? What practical steps is the hon. Lady taking to ensure that we regain a better share of this market? Is she satisfied that in our High Commission there has sufficient business and industrial experience to take advantage of this expanding market?

In reply to the latter part of that question, my experience in dealing with particularly our commercial sections abroad is that many of the posts have a high degree of efficiency and a workmanlike approach to the problems of commerce. What they are doing is of immense importance and we should not underestimate their abilities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for ensuring that promissory agreements issued by finance companies are not connected with unrelated trade agreements.

The extent to which finance companies should be responsible for the performance and quality of goods purchased with the money they lend is one of the matters being considered by the Crowther Committee. I see no justification for taking action in advance of its report.

May I assure my hon. Friend that I am delighted that he was able to give such a clear answer, because when I handed in the Question, although it may have been ungrammatical, it was understandable but the way in which it has been formulated is confusing? I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. In the interim period, however, is it not possible to give maximum publicity to the fact that this sort of agreement is still being made, that goods are being sold on the doorstep and that people are being given the impression that finance companies are financing the goods when it is done by private loan?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on what she has done to give publicity in this matter. I am also glad to know that a number of finance houses and oil companies have reviewed lists of approved dealers in connection with central heating applications, with which my hon. Friend has been particularly concerned.

asked the President of the Board of Trade his latest estimate of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of trade of joining the Common Market on terms acceptable to Her Majesty's Government both immediately on joining and at the end of the transitional period.

Any estimate under present circumstances would be highly speculative.

If it is impossible to make an estimate of our balance of trade on entering the Common Market, why is it thought to be a good thing to join? Might not the estimate be extremely bad, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has pointed out?

My predecessor, like the hon. Member, holds strong and well-known views on this topic, which do not command universal assent on either side of the House. I do not think that there is substance in the hon. Member's contention, partly because he ignores the political arguments—they may be held to be for or against, but there are clearly strong political arguments in this connection—and partly because it is possible to make a judgment that entry is in the long-term economic interests of the country without being able to quantify all the possible gains and losses in terms of an exact figure.

Bunk!

The Minister must have, or can surely get, at least some evidence on which to make an estimate. It would be helpful if he could give us an idea. Surely, he is not telling us that we are going into the Common Market without any idea of what is involved.

No, Sir. This matter was discussed at great length during our debates a year and a half ago, when one figure—and only one figure—was given for the likely effect on us of the common agricultural policy. It is impossible to give even an analogous figure to that at present because the financial regulations governing the common agricultural policy have to be renegotiated by the Six before the end of 1969.

asked the President of the Board of Trade on what criteria it was decided that machinery used in the preparation of seed for sale in the factory which performs all the processes of cleaning, drying, etc., should qualify for investment grants, and that the wastepaper recovery industry should not.

To receive investment grant a manufacturer must carry on a process which results in a product significantly different from the raw material. As I stated on 23rd April in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), policy on investment grants for the wastepaper industry has been reconsidered and certain processes carried on by that industry will, subject to the normal conditions, be admissible for grant.—[Vol. 782, c. 85–6.]

While I welcome the Government's belated decision relating to the waste paper recovery industry may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will say what is now the position in relation to other parts of the reclamation industry such as rubber waste and textile wastes?

I could not answer that question without notice.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that while he has told us what the rules are, he has not told us what the reasons for them are? Is there not a strong case for having consistent rules with regard to S.E.T. and investment grants? Could we have an explanation in each case for the differences between one service and another?

Over the great majority of the field the treatment of investment grants and S.E.T. is the same. There are a few exceptions. These exceptions arise from the nature of the legislation governing them. In the case of investment grants, it depends on whether or not it is a manufacturing process or a manufacturing industry, but the coverage is very largely the same.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take further action to alleviate the effects of the decision now made to close, before the end of the year, the locomotive works at Inverurie.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his similar Question given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 21st April, 1969.—[Vol. 782, c. 35.]

Does the hon. Lady realise that the announcement of the complete closure in so short a time, resulting in the loss of a great many jobs, is contrary to what many of those concerned in the area had been led by the Government to expect? Why have the Government not decided to designate this area as a special development area?

We are very sympathetic to the problem of everyone in Inverurie. That is why there has been a very special publicity campaign carried out in order to find suitable firms which could possibly take up the skilled workers. This is, I think, the important thing, and we are very encouraged by the sort of replies we have got. I think that this is the practical way of dealing with the situation at the moment, and far better than talking about designating the area as a special development area.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in a case like this men are treated as economic ciphers and units of production, and that they are getting very tired of it? Will she instruct the authorities concerned to treat these people, who have given a lifetime to industry, with more sympathy, and human dignity?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have the interests of the people of Inverurie very much at heart. We recognise that this is a very specific and difficult problem. We are undertaking unusual methods to try to deal with it, and we hope very soon to see a complete change in the situation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate discussions with the major fur importing and producing countries with a view to making trade in baby seal fur illegal.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind allegations in the Press about cruelty in the methods of killing used in the Canadian seal hunt. I would refer him to the answer that I gave on 12th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). It remains our view, after careful consideration of the evidence, that direct controls of the sort operated by the Canadian Government provide the most effective means of preventing cruelty.—[Vol. 777, c. 312.]

As the Minister appears to take the view that there is little cruelty, may I ask him whether he has had an opportunity of studying the evidence of Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, of Cambridge University, reporting that one out of three baby seals was still alive when skinned? Is he further aware that there is a widespread feeling of revulsion in the country at this annual massacre of baby seals off the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland? Why will not the Government give a lead in putting an end to this barbarism and brutality?

I am well aware of the concern that exists. I share the concern expressed at the possibility of cruelty. I have not studied the evidence to which the hon. Member referred but if he will send it to me, or give me an exact reference, I shall certainly study it. I have, however, studied the other evidence, which appears to contradict the evidence that he has mentioned. Indeed, there is a dispute whether it is possible to skin a seal that is still alive. I am well aware of the concern expressed, but we have made a serious study of the evidence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Textile Council's Productivity Study.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 16th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 253.]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the real concern in the industry about the position after 1970? Manufacturers are eager to know what protection they can look forward to in the 1970s.

I am well aware of the concern in the industry, and have been so for some time. I heard it again expressed at the Textile Council's annual spring conference only a fortnight ago, at Nottingham. The conclusions in the report of the productivity and efficiency study are not directly solely at the Government; they are equally directed at the industry itself.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that reports have been in front of him for over a year dealing with major problems of the textile industry—for instance, the Monopolies Commission's Report? We have been asked to wait until the Textile Council productivity report was made. This places him under an obligation not unduly to delay.

I entirely accept that. I accept complete responsibility for announcing Government decisions without undue delay, but having had the report—I forget the exact time—only recently, I must have discussions with the industry through the Textile Council. I propose to do that over the next two months, and as soon as possible after that I shall announce our conclusions to the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to control the door-to-door delivery of advertising material.

No, Sir. We are not aware of any grounds which would justify our doing so.

Will the Minister consult the police in this matter? Is she aware that many householders who go on holiday comply with police requests to cancel milk and newspapers and make arrangements with the Post Office, and so on, but come back to find their letter boxes stuffed with unwanted advertising material, revealing to everyone that the house is empty and thereby creating a potential danger of house-breaking?

I am sympathetic to the difficulties that people encounter in making their homes safe, but the difficulty is that to bring this sort of restriction in would also affect charitable organisations which traditionally put notices of jumble sales through letter boxes.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the door-to-door salesman situation is beginning to get out of control, and that too many people can do this, with consequent danger? Will she not institute an inquiry to see what can be done and bring about some sort of order by defining who can stand on a doorstep with impunity and talk to a householder?

I am aware of the hon. Member's interest in this matter. The question of door-to-door salesmen, as opposed to the distribution of material, is a highly complex one. It would be wrong to rush into making any direction without any evidence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of industry in the United Kingdom economy is owned and controlled by United States interests; and in what way he estimates that this trend will develop within the next few years.

It is estimated that 6 to 7 per cent. of the net assets of non-financial companies are both owned and controlled in the United States. Present expectations are that this proportion will continue gradually to increase.

American industrialists are good employers and we want factories in development areas, but can my hon. Friend say whether any initiative will be launched to encourage our own domestic industry to expand to a greater extent?

Many initiatives have been taken to encourage British industry to expand in precisely that way. I note my hon. Friend's welcome for the contribution made by American investment in manufacturing in this country.

Will the Minister point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that he cheerfully supported the Corporation Tax system, which makes British industry a sitting duck for American intervention? Will he make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the tax system?

I do not know that the rate of American take-over of British firms is any higher now than it was under the Government of hon. Members opposite. Certainly the Government have powers of control in cases where they feel that it would be contrary to the national interest for there to be a take-over.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his review of alternative safety measures following the withdrawal of helicopters from Manston, Kent.

There is a wide range of well tried and effective rescue facilities in the area on which H.M. Coastguard can call in an emergency. They include 11 life-boats and 11 fast inshore rescue boats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Institution has now announced that it is adding two more inshore rescue boats and a new 40 ft. lifeboat. Helicopters from Coltishall and Thorney Island will be available.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the additional facilities that he has mentioned will be welcomed? Is he satisfied that these will be adequate to cope with an area where there is increasing traffic? Does not he feel that there is a case for basing our rescue services as a whole on more than mainly voluntary organisations and part-time military help? Will he not consider having an inquiry into the whole matter?

I do not think that we can ever say that we are satisfied with the facilities available, because it is our job to improve them as far as possible. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a noble record as a voluntary organisation and would, I think, prefer to keep it that way. We are certainly reviewing the facilities at present and discussing them with, for example, the Chamber of Shipping and the R.N.L.I., and we shall make such changes as may be required in the light of what we learn.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the entitlement of companies to receipt of industrial development grant is related to the expected number of jobs to be created by the investment to which the grant relates.

In considering assistance under the Local Employment Acts the Board of Trade are required to have regard to the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided.

Has the hon. Gentleman noted reports that taxpayers' subsidies to the projected American petrochemical complex at Invergordon may work out at £176,000 for every job created? Is this what he described earlier as an example of the effectiveness of the investment grant system in encouraging industrial development?

I have noted such reports. I cannot, of course, give information about individual firms, but I do not believe that report, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does.

Will my hon. Friend note that the suggestion being made by the Opposition, that this development would not be welcomed, will be rebutted strenuously and energetically throughout the Highlands?

It is, of course, true that the investment grant system has helped greatly to create employment in Scotland and elsewhere.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of male and female workers, respectively, currently employed in factories in Scotland built under advance factory programmes announced since 15th October, 1964.

Of the 54 Board of Trade advance factories authorised in Scotland since 15th October, 1964, 41 have been completed. Of these, 31 have been allocated and 24 of them are in production. These 24 factories so far provide employment for 800 men and 1,030 women.

How much, in toto, has it so far cost to provide these 800 male jobs in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand that this advance factory programme is producing more jobs in Scotland than have been produced for many years. His constant campaign against them will not be welcomed by Scots, even if it is welcomed by some of his hon. Friends.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition for many years were entirely opposed to the principle of providing advance factories at all and that this is part of the problem from which we are suffering in Scotland today? Will she assure us that she will use every endeavour to ensure that we get tenants for these factories as early as possible?

I will certainly give that undertaking. I know that hon. Members who wax very eloquent against advance factories in the House do not do so in development areas when dealing with their constituents.

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is little point in building an advance factory in Scotland if it then remains empty for long periods? How can she explain her previous remarks when there has been a loss of 35,000 net jobs over the last four years compared with an increase of 30,000 in the previous four years?

The advance factory programme was started and is being carried on specifically to provide factories so that when tenants want space quickly it can be provided. The hon. Gentleman himself must know that in the past it has been painfully obvious that factories were not available when people wanted them quickly. This factory programme is changing the job picture in Scotland, and he cannot deny it.

In considering this factory programme, does the hon. Lady seek the advice of the Scottish Economic Planning Board and the economic planning councils? If so, does she follow the advice that she gets?

The Government are in close contact with the economic planning councils and obviously we consider their advice very carefully.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hon. Lady's failure to answer my question, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the apple import quota licence allocation was last reviewed; and when he intends further to review the allocation.

Apple licences were last reallocated before the quota period beginning 1st July, 1967. I have decided to reallocate licences in time for the quota period beginning 1st July this year. Notices to importers giving the details of reallocation and inviting applications were issued yesterday. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reallocation in 1967 was looked on as a radical reallocation? What new factors have arisen, or new representations been made to him, to make him look at this so soon after that reallocation?

The 1967 reallocation may have been radical in terms of practical stability on the basis of the issue of licences since 1951, with some changes but very few; it certainly was not radical in any other sense. Since we have to have this quota system, it is necessary to try to bring the quota allocation into some sort of line with the way in which the trade could have developed in the absence of the quota system.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the quotas are being given to bona fide traders and not to "mushroom" operators who have no substantial existing trade in apples and pears?

The qualifications for the issue of licences are explained in the notice to importers to which I have referred, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his policy concerning industrial development certificates arising from the publication of the Government's review of the South-East Economic Planning Council's report, A Strategy for the South-East.

The Government's reply to the Council's report answers very fully the various points raised about industrial development certificate policy in the South-East. We have nothing further to add.

Would my hon. Friend accept that there are parts of the South-East which do not enjoy the prosperity of the region as a whole, and that this needs to be recognised in other parts of the country as well? Would she confirm that her Department will continue to exercise a flexible policy on i.d.cs., and give the maximum encouragement to town development schemes in the region?

We take into account as far as possible the difficulties faced by some small areas of the South-East and will continue to be flexible in the way that we consider every i.d.c. application.

asked the President of the Board of Trade by what percentage the number of industrial development certificates granted in 1968 exceeded the number granted in 1965 in Scotland, England and Wales, respectively; and what were the comparable percentage increases in the factory floor covered by the industrial development certificates.

The increases by number of approvals were 7·9 per cent., 68 per cent. and 105·2 per cent., and by area 7·1 per cent., 25·2 per cent., and 96·6 per cent., respectively. The figures fluctuate from year to year and comparisons based on individual years can be misleading.

Are not those astonishing and depressing figures for Scotland? How can the Minister justify a situation in which the percentage of i.d.cs for Scotland granted in 1967 and 1968 was lower in both years than at any time since 1961? Is the hon. Lady aware that this is a scandalous state of affairs in view of the rapid decline in some of our traditional industries in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman should try not to let his imagination run away with him. [Interruption.] In the four years 1965 to 1968 the number of i.d.cs approved for Scotland increased by 112 per cent. over the period 1961 to 1964. More than 42,000 jobs, 23,000 of them for men, are in prospect over the next four years in authorised new building and buildings taken over by manufacturers in Scotland.

Will the hon. Lady withdraw what she said about my hon. Friend's imagination—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—remembering that she had to make a correction in the OFFICIAL REPORT after giving an incorrect Answer the other day to one of my other hon. Friends?

I will certainly not withdraw my remark in view of the facts. The occasion to which the hon. Gentleman is referring was one about which I sent a letter of apology to the hon. Member concerned. The position arose because, off the cuff, I gave a figure quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about this issue and is interested in the figures, he should congratulate the Government on what they have been doing and not keep harping about the past.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will facilitate efforts by British companies to participate in South African shipbuilding and aircraft industries.

Companies investing in South Africa are expected to operate in accordance with the Voluntary Programme of investment restraint.

Is it not a fact that, because of the United Nations embargo, the Government have deliberately prevented or discouraged participation in these industries, and that the right hon. Gentleman gave an incorrect Answer in the House on 19th March, saying that our exports to South Africa had increased, when, in fact, they have declined by £65 million and our total share of South African exports has decreased by 2 per cent.? What will he do about this?

I shall be answering the latter part of that question in about two minutes. On the first part, I do not have the evidence which the hon. Gentleman has. If he sends it to me, I will examine it.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous and unwise to send valuable and scarce capital resources to an area which is politically highly unstable, which could have serious political repercussions on this country's standing in the United Nations and elsewhere?

No, Sir. If my hon. Friend is proposing that we should impose a unilateral ban on the export of capital to South Africa, I cannot accept that. There is no suggestion of this in the United Nations Resolution. As far as I know, such a ban has never been suggested in the United Nations, and our policy on the export of capital is identical with that of those other countries which are faithfully carrying out the Security Council Resolution.

asked the President of the Board Trade what is the percentage change in British exports to South Africa for the year to date compared with the corresponding period in 1968; and what is the estimated British share of total South African imports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage increase in British exports comparing 1968 with 1965; and what was the comparable increase in exports to South Africa.

The value of United Kingdom exports increased by 31 per cent. between 1965 and 1968; there was virtually no change in the value of our exports to South Africa between 1965 and 1968, or between the first quarters of 1968 and 1969. Our share of South African imports in 1968 was 24 per cent. This was less than in 1967, and not greater, as I inadvertently stated on 19th March. The trend is broadly in line with our experience in overseas sterling area markets generally.

Even so, do not these figures reveal that South Africa remains a major market for British goods? Would the right hon. Gentleman take this occasion to underline his own anxieties that our trade with South Africa shall continue to proceed at a buoyant level and, indeed, to increase?

South Africa remains a most important market, and I repeat what I have said many times in public; that our policy, on the one hand, is faithfully to carry out the United Nations Resolution on the arms ban and, on the other, otherwise to encourage civilian trade to the greatest possible extent.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that at a time when trade in this market could have increased by an additional 31 per cent., our record of exports to South Africa has been disappointing? Is he satisfied that his Department is doing everything possible to encourage trade with South Africa? In particular, will he give advice to local authorities to provide every help and encouragement to South African goodwill and trade missions coming to this country?

To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, about the decline in our share of this trade, I remind him that our share of South African trade was declining even under the Conservative Administration before the arms ban was introduced. This decline is roughly in line with what is happening in other developed sterling countries as a result of the shift away from traditional markets towards markets in Western Europe and the United States. Our policy in this matter is perfectly plain. It is to maintain the arms ban but, subject to that, to increase trade.

Do the Government consider it advantageous that the South African Government should be buying French submarines and fighters? Is he in a position to give an estimate of the sums that are being lost to us as a result of the policy that we are following?

There is no clear evidence—none has been submitted to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite or others—to show that our trade in non-military goods is suffering as a result of the ban. As to the ban itself, I believe that it is in the general interest of the world that the United Nations should have imposed it and that the United Kingdom should uphold it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his last comment is very welcome on this side of the House? Would he agree that rather than our exporting arms to South Africa being a help, such a step would place a tremendous strain on the supply of arms to our own Forces? Is he aware that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) it is being found difficult, despite what was said last year and has since been shown in the local Press, to obtain skilled labour to build up the Royal Air Force?

I agree with my hon. Friend. At this stage I will only add a point which is consistently ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the great majority of advanced industrial countries are pursuing exactly the same policy on arms as we are.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates were applied for and how many were given to firms wishing to build a factory in Hull in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968; and what was the square footage in each year, respectively.

In the Hull employment exchange area 21 industrial development certificates were issued in 1966, 33 in 1967 and 32 in 1968, for 450,000 sq. ft., 746,000 sq. ft., and 552,000 sq. ft. respectively. No application was refused during this period.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that these figures could be vastly improved, particularly if the Government implemented the recommendations of the Hunt Committee? Will she take special note of the need for special aid in this area? Is she further aware that even better progress could be made if the Government implemented the findings of the Humberside Study, the Report of which I have with me?

I understand that there is to be a statement about the Humberside Report. I suggest that we await the findings.

Even so, is my hon. Friend aware that the underlying trend in Hull is causing tremendous concern, that the people of the area are looking forward to something constructive being done as a result of the Humberside and Hunt Reports, and that we hope that things will be considerably improved?

A certain amount of discussion is already going on with the authorities in the area about, for example, the boundaries and the findings of the Hunt Committee. We must wait to see what is decided.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the home market for textiles is taken up by importers from underdeveloped countries.

The value of imports of textile products in 1968 from the developing countries—that is, countries included in Economic Class II of the United Nations trade statistics—amounted to about 6 per cent. of the total sales of the textile industry to United Kingdom buyers outside the industry. These imports exclude, of course, cotton, wool and other natural fibres, but include those imports which are incorporated in exports.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that reputable people connected with the industry have put the figure very much higher than that and that, depending on what one takes into account, it could, they say, be as high as 40 per cent.? While we must do all we can to help the under-developed countries, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that, on this matter, we are going beyond reason?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question may be confusing the original Question, which was concerned with the home market for textiles, with the undoubtedly large imports of cotton cloth from developing countries, which, in 1968, reached about 32 per cent. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Textile Council's recent report and the fact that my right hon. Friend is currently considering the recommendations made therein.

Does my hon. Friend anticipate the figures which he quoted being altered in any way as a result of the increase in Purchase Tax on textiles in the Budget, about which much concern has been expressed in Lancashire?

I hope that the increase in Purchase Tax on textiles will not affect these figures. I believe that the main factors which affect the figures are the competitiveness of the British industry and the degree to which it responds to market demands.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the representations made to him by Messrs. Westerly Marine Limited, of Waterlooville, regarding the export of yachts to the United States of America.

We did what we could to help Westerly Marine Ltd. with its immediate problem of finding shipping space to carry yachts to the Great Lakes ports. I understand that the position has now improved. We are making inquiries to establish whether there is likely to be a general problem, and the company is being kept informed.

Are the Government taking this general problem seriously, since obviously a firm with a splendid record like this should not be placed in a position where simply because of the size of its products it cannot find shipping space to the United States?

I agree with all that the hon. Member has said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the report of the Edwards Committee.

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

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for civil aviation following upon publication of the report of the Edwards Committee.

The report will be published this Friday, 2nd May. I shall urgently consider the Committee's recommendations, and I hope that all interested parties which wish to put their views to me will do so as soon as reasonably possible after publication.

Can the Minister take the unusual step of leaking to the House today what will appear in the Press tomorrow, the day before publication?

Leaks never emerge from the Board of Trade.

Could the President assure the House that in this matter he will not find himself suffering from what might be called the Hunt syndrome—that is, publishing a report and half an hour later refuting all its recommendations before the House of Commons?

My trouble is that I have never been clear exactly what a syndrome is, so that I cannot say whether I am suffering from one. At least, my intention is clear. I do not intend to publish the Government's conclusions on the report at the same time as the report is published. I hope during the summer to publish a White Paper which might form the basis of Parliamentary debate, but I do not want to do even that until there has been plenty of time for public debate on the subject and for all views to be heard.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement he has made means he will welcome the views not only of the air corporations but also of independent operators in the aviation business and of tour operators who are greatly concerned in this?

Certainly. I shall very much welcome views from all interested parties in all sections of the industry.

While the House will welcome the Minister's attitude in that he is not taking precipitate action in this matter, will he take note that if there are recommendations which would involve legislation it would be to advantage if the legislation could come without delay?

I think that is right, but it is early to say at the moment whether this will be so, for it depends on what the recommendations are and what sort of views we take of them, but certainly if there has to be legislation, while I think it is unlikely that we should get it through this Session, I quite agree that it should be as early as possible in the next.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost to the economy of the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' strike.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in a White Paper a synopsis of the claim of British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots and their remuneration compared with other international airlines; and what loss of revenue and of foreign exchange resulted from the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' strike.

B.O.A.C.'s preliminary estimate is that the strike caused a loss of revenue of about £5 million and a loss of profits of £4 million. The loss of foreign exchange will have been of the same order and magnitude. I do not propose to publish a White Paper on the lines suggested.

Is the Minister aware that many people feel that this trouble was not only very expensive but highly unnecessary, and that it was the product of an unfortunate breakdown in management-pilot relations over a considerable time? What action is he taking to ensure that it does not happen again? Would he, in particular, consider making available to the House some of the findings of Professor Woods?

I do not want this afternoon to try to apportion blame between the two sides in the industry, but I do not agree with the hon. Member that, as we all know, we have had for some time labour relations in B.O.A.C. which have certainly not been satisfactory. I think that the most urgent job now is that an effort should be made by both sides—by both sides—to get these labour relations on a very much more satisfactory footing, and I have made quite clear to B.O.A.C. that this is my view. As to the question of Professor Woods' reports, I shall have to consider that, because they were reports made to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this air corporation is in an unique position among our nationalised industries, having to compete with very many foreign corporations of a similar character, and what has he now to tell the House about permanent reform of the consultative machinery among the highly paid executives and pilots of B.O.A.C. which would frustrate the possibility of another crisis of this kind, with heavy losses, from which he excluded the consequential losses?

I certainly have the same objective in mind as the hon. Gentleman does, but it is not my province as a Minister to get too involved in the detail of industrial relations in a nationalised corporation, although I think the machinery, as well as the attitude, does need improving. But I am bound to leave that to the responsibility of the management of the Corporation.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that usually it takes two to make a quarrel?

Well, I have already said in reply to an earlier question that I thought that there were, clearly, faults on both sides. What there is no point in doing is trying to apportion blame precisely between the two sides; the thing is not now to rake over the past but to try to make sure that it does not happen again.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most international airlines have a senior captain on their board or on the management? This has not happened in B.O.A.C., with a consequential rift between management and the 1,200 aircrew. Would it not be logical to find a suitable man out of those 1,200 to fill this senior appointment, bridge the gap, and bring about better relations?

I take note of the point the hon. Gentleman raises but I do not propose to interfere to that degree of detail in the management of B.O.A.C.

asked the President of the Board or Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the United States and French aviation authorities on the establishment of aircraft noise control procedures.

Good progress was made last year in drawing up an outline tripartite noise certification plan covering future generations of subsonic jet aircraft.

The House recognises that the Minister has good intentions, but could he tell us what noise levels he is talking about in these terms and when he anticipates agreement will be reached? Can he assure us that he is taking steps to keep the Roskill Commission informed of the progress which is being made, as the results must be relevant to its inquiry?

I cannot say when agreement will be reached because it depends, quite clearly, not only on ourselves but also on the French and American Governments, in particular. We are moving as fast as we possibly can. The point about noise levels is not easy because, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, they vary in different circumstances, and particularly in relation to weight of aircraft. I think the standards which we are aiming at are ones in which the House will find some satisfaction. Certainly we shall ensure that the Roskill Commission is kept in touch with the progress which is made.

Will my hon. Friend give attention in particular to the recommendations of the Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the limitation of noise levels when licensing aircraft?

I think we share a common problem with many other countries. Noise is a very real social problem, and there is a general anxiety to reduce the current levels. Certainly we will consult with everybody who can help towards this end.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which directors of British European Airways have notified him that they have a financial interest in firms engaged in chartering aircraft.

No member of B.E.A. Board has notified us of a financial interest in any company operating aircraft for charter use. One member has an interest in a travel agency which charters aircraft from operators.

In view of the suggestion by B.E.A. that it will go into the charter business on a large scale, and in view especially of the provisions of the Air Corporations Bill, now before the House, does the Minister agree that it would be entirely improper for any member of the B.E.A. board who has an interest in a charter company or in a travel agency to be a permanent member of that board?

Conflicts of interest are bound to occur from time to time in industry. The real safeguard is disclosure. We are proposing to take powers which will provide certain statutory backing for a practice which the Board of Trade has been carrying out informally. I think that this is the best way to do it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the settlement of the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' salary claim is within the terms of the prices and incomes policy.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 25th April—[Vol. 782, c. 147.]

Without commenting either way on the settlement, which is none of my business, can the right hon. Gentleman say how a 15 per cent. average increase, from which the productivity increase strings were cut away, can possibly be regarded as coming within the terms of the Government's prices and incomes policy? Does this now mean that that policy has been jettisoned by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman's opening words, if universally carried out in the House, would very much shorten our debates. On the merit of the matter, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that this is a very large increase. On the other hand, it is not a straight pay increase. There is also the introduction of an entirely new system of piece work and a number of other detailed productivity matters, some of which have not yet been wholly agreed between the Corporation and B.A.L.P.A. Until we have examined the productivity aspect, it is not possible to make a more positive statement.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to take the comparability criteria seriously, it might be a good idea to deal with the glamour boys of transport in the same way as we deal with the busmen?

To imitate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the busmen are not my responsibility; nor is the incomes policy generally. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. As I said in my original Answer, we are looking at this settlement in the light of the Government's policy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has not issued a notice incorporating I.S.O. Recommendation R.799/68 on the safety of bulwark ladders and stanchion combinations.

Because the I.S.O. Recommendation does not provide the degree of latitude contained in the Pilot Ladder Rules, 1965 which is essential having regard to the many different designs and shapes of vessels on which pilot ladders are used.

Does the Minister appreciate that I asked his right hon. Friend about the matter following the death of a pilot and we were led to believe that these regulations would be implemented? Since then eight months have passed and there have been other serious accidents. What is the hon. Gentleman to say to pilots, who are perfectly entitled not to board ships under these conditions? Does he want them to go on strike?

These are very difficult problems involving technical considerations. I know of the hon. Member's deep concern, which we share. There are still differences of opinion among the interested parties. We are having discussions, and I hope, like the hon. Member, that these differences will be resolved very shortly.