asked the President of the Board of Trade if, following his discussions with the interests concerned, he will now abandon his proposal to reduce the customs duty on boned and boneless beef imported from foreign countries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what tariff changes he proposes in respect of imports of boned meat following the recommendations of the Northumberland Commission.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now completed his negotiations on the revision of the tariff on boneless beef; and if he will make a statement.

After considering the views expressed by the home and overseas interests concerned, the Government have decided that the present 20 per cent. duty on boned or boneless beef and veal in fresh, chilled or frozen form should be reduced to 5 per cent. with effect from 1st October, 1969. I will review the new rate if necessary in the light of experience.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this reduction in duty will reduce by 15 per cent. the margin of preference afforded to Commonwealth countries and, therefore, damage their trade and possibly throw their whole trade into chaos? Will he not reconsider this matter from the point of view of Commonwealth producers?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is much too pessimistic. Commonwealth producers will gain from the ban on bone-in beef, and this decision will merely offset the gain that they would have had from that. If there were to be the disruption which the hon. Gentleman fears, this would constitute the kind of circumstances in which I would review the decision.

In view of the overriding importance of health considerations in dealing with this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that boned beef which will now be subject to a 5 per cent. tariff must be accompanied by the lymphatic glands which will enable the health inspection to be carried out also in this country.

Yes, Sir; that is the case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to reduce this duty will be widely welcomed by the housewife and the trade in this country? Why is he sticking to the percentage basis rather than a duty of so much according to weight?

There are two reasons why we are sticking to an ad valorem duty rather than having a specific duty. One is that the great majority of our duties are ad valorem. The other, which is more important, is the fact that a specific duty can be eroded in value simply by a movement in prices. The general opinion is that ad valorem duties make much more sense.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what account he is taking of the existing system of Commonwealth preferences in his plans for implementing the scheme for a generalised system of preference for less developed countries approved by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conference in New Delhi.

It is, in the Government's view, basic to the proposed generalised preference arrangements that they should provide new benefits in third markets to compensate Commonwealth developing countries for the extent to which they would be obliged to share with the developing countries their existing preferential arrangements in our market.

Can the Minister give an idea of what the compensation will be in respect of imports to this country from the existing Commonwealth countries?

No, Sir. We have not yet advanced sufficiently far in the direction of a generalised preference scheme to say what kind of compensation would be required. The Government have, however, consistently made it clear that a scheme would not be acceptable to us unless the Commonwealth developing countries received new advantages in third markets to compensate them for anything they might lose by sharing preferences in the British market.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference last year agreed on the establishment of a system of preferences which, among other things, would promote industrialisation in some of the less advanced countries? Will he, further, agree that the announcement that we are to switch from quotas to a tariff system for cotton imports takes us a step away from this objective?

No, Sir, I do not think that it will do so. I agree with why my hon. Friend has described as being the purpose of the U.N.C.T.A.D. scheme but, as I pointed out in the House yesterday, I believe that a tariff solution on textiles could well do less harm to the developing countries than a continuation of the quota system. I do not, therefore, regard yesterday's decision as being in any way a blow to the developing countries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he will not in all circumstances pay grant under the Industrial Development Act, 1966, on the air conditioning equipment necessary for the functioning of a computer which itself qualifies for grant.

Because the Act provides for grant to be paid towards the cost of such equipment only if it is part of the expenditure incurred by the applicant in providing the computer.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that air-conditioning equipment which is necessary for the functioning of a computer does not qualify for grant, whereas other peripheral equipment, such as decollators, which is not necessary does qualify. May I ask the Minister to look at this again

Air-conditioning equipment qualifies where it is provided for the owner of the computer and is regarded as part of the installation expenses. The difficulty in the case which I think the hon. Member has in mind concerns the position of a lessee, which is different in the way which has been explained to the firm with which I believe the hon. Member is concerned.

Is not that a very silly answer? Why should there be a difference in the assistance given by the Government to the installation of a computer if it is leased? Would not the Minister of State look at this again, particularly with regard to the fact that we had almost exactly the same arguments in relation to the peripheral equipment for computers, on which the Board of Trade recently made what was, to us, a very welcome announcement?

I am advised that we do not have legal power under the Act to pay for air-conditioning equipment in the case of lessees in instances such as this. I agree that there is an anomaly, but it arises from the willingness of the Government to help in those cases where they can—that is, where the computer is bought by the user and the air-conditioning equipment is provided as part of the installation expenses. The fact that we have tried to help has created the appearance of anomaly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he now has to provide a helicopter rescue service on the South Coast of England; and if he will make a statement.

There is a wide range of rescue services along the South Coast, including Service helicopters. We have no plans at present to provide a civil helicopter rescue service but we have constantly in mind the need to ensure that facilities are maintained at a high standard.

Is the Minister aware that I have a letter from the Ministry of Defence dated 6th May saying that the responsibility is that of the Board of Trade? Now the Minister appears to be saying that the responsibility is that of the Ministry of Defence. How many people must be drowned before Government Departments sort out whose responsibility it is?

The responsibility is collectively that of the Government. There is no difference of emphasis or opinion here. The hon. Member and the House know about the withdrawal of the Royal Air Force helicopters from Manston. This has created problems. We are looking at them together and in so far as there is a danger of falling short we shall remedy this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already a very useful helicopter rescue service off the South Coast at Brighton? If it is not under his control, will he take it under his control and develop it? It is especially useful during the holiday season.

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. He is quite right. There are Royal Air Force stations at Thorney Island, in Sussex, and also at Coltishall, in Norfolk. They provide a service, although, of course, this does not adequately cover that part of the coast previously covered from Manston.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made of the effect on the economy of the trend towards the granting of longer trade credit for overseas transactions; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend keep this matter under constant review. In considering the length of credit we can offer for our exports, the need for a quick return to our reserves must be balanced by the need to maintain the competitive position of our exporters.

Has the Minister of State made an assessment of the effect on exports of any marginal variation in the rate of interest charged on special export lending to finance exports of ships and capital goods?

As a result of the competitive position, the proportion of exports which are on longer terms has increased. This is not as a result of any leadership which we have given in a credit race but is because it is necessitated by the competitive export position. The hon. Member will know about the O.E.C.D. understanding in respect of ships.

Does "constant review" imply that there has been recent discussion with the I.M.F. of the familiar link to help developing countries with credit?

No, Sir. The governing factor is the need to keep our exports competitive.

Do the Government continually compare the use of foreign exchange for long-term credit with the use of foreign exchange for overseas investment, which may produce income for this country rather quicker than long-term credit?

This is a balance of advantage which has to be kept under review, but we also have very much to take account of the need to press our exports forward, which requires the matching of other people's credit terms.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his decision about the establishment of a National Exhibition Centre.

I cannot at this stage add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th June,—[Vol. 784, c. 1747–9.]

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the provision of a national exhibition centre would provide an opportunity for an architectural and design concept of world significance? Will the Minister refrain from authorising a go-ahead until he is satisfied that the opportunity can be taken in a way which will support the reputation of British design and workmanship?

I think we are all in agreement that if we are to put up permanent buildings it is as well for them to be of a very high standard architecturally, and I am certainly in agreement with the hon. Member about this. We must examine the scheme in greater detail before we decide on the design.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that with all the difficulties, which we recognise, her reply is bound to be greeted with dismay by British industry? May we have an assurance that the Board of Trade is examining with great urgency the need for this national exhibition centre? Is it not rather sad that no progress has been made since the President of the Board of Trade made his speech in the debate last June?

The hon. Member is wrong. I did not say that there had been no progress. I said that there was nothing I could add at the present time. A private scheme from a private developer is being examined. It is very important that we should not go ahead with this decision until all the possibilities have been examined, because there are many aspects of this and many differing industries have an important state in what happens. We hope that something will be decided as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was Great Britain's share of world trade in 1967, the first half of 1968, the second half of 1968 and the first five months of 1969.

The United Kingdom share of exports of manufactures from the main manufacturing countries was 12 per cent. in 1967, 11 per cent. in each of the first and second halves of 1968 and maintained at 11 per cent. in the first quarter of this year, the latest period for which adequate figures are available. Part of the reduction between 1967 and 1968 was due to the fall in United Kingdom export prices expressed in dollar terms.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these figures show that the increase in British exports over the last two years is, to a large extent, a reflection of the rapid increase in trade among the developed countries and that the continuing difficulties that we still have in the balance of payments stem more from the failure of our exports to rise sufficiently than from the rise in imports, as some observers have suggested? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the improvement in our export performance over the next year will be sufficient to remedy this situation and to bring the £300 million surplus which has been predicted?

I entirely agree that, taking a broad view, the British balance of payments difficulty is fundamentally due to failure on the export side rather than failure on the import side, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that the last 18 months or so have been the first time in very many years when Britain has kept her share of world trade. That share fell in the 10 years before devaluation by about ½ per cent. a year. All the indications are that exports are on an encouragingly rising trend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decline in motor-car production for the home market which in May was 20 per cent. below the figures for May, 1968, he will now relax hire-purchase restrictions on car sales.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the estimated sales by the motor industry on the home market this year is below a million vehicles for the first time since 1962, what steps he plans to take to help reverse this trend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the figures for motor-car production for the home market for May of this year which show a reduction on last year's figures, he will now reconsider the hire-purchase restrictions which are at present in operation.

No, Sir. Despite the losses of production earlier this year from strikes, total production of passenger cars for home and export during the first five months of 1969 was slightly greater than in the same period of 1968. I should add that there was one less week in 1968. It remains necessary to restrain home demand to make room for greater exports.

But is it not a fact that although, as my hon. Friend has said, total production was scarcely different from last year's production, on the home market it was 16 per cent. down on that in the corresponding period of last year, and would he not agree that this does create considerable difficulties for our motor manufacturers in being able to export at competitive prices because it raises their total overheads? Has he not received very stern representations from manufacturers for some easing of restrictions on the home market.

There have been representations, and I am, of course, aware of the difficulties this sort of policy causes, but, nevertheless, my hon. Friend will be aware that production of passenger cars for export in the first five months of this year were 12 per cent. more than in the first five months of last year, and it seems to me to be the right trend for a higher proportion of motor car manufactures to be exported.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House believe that this important industry leans rather unduly heavily on this particular argument, but that, nevertheless, it is of some importance, and would he assure us that he will bend his best efforts towards trying to get a return to the record car production not of 1968 but of a year or two ago?

I understand the importance of the argument. I understand the difficulties this causes, but, as my hon. Friend says, the main thing here is to achieve exports, and I hope that record production will be achieved as a result of record sales for export.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what income elasticity of demand his Department estimates now attaches to United Kingdom imports and United Kingdom exports, respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the low income elasticity of demand for United Kingdom exports relative to the elasticity of demand for United Kingdom imports; what steps he is tak- ing to remove this cause of Great Britain's present slow rate of growth; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of changes in the present respective income elasticities of demand for United Kingdom imports and United Kingdom exports; and if he will make a statement.

Reliable estimates of income elasticities of demand are matters of difficult and uncertain economic analysis. The trend in our exports in relation to world demand has been greatly strengthened by devaluation, the full effects of which have yet to work through in increased deliveries. Over the past year our exports have risen significantly faster than imports, the volume of which has changed little despite a rise in economic activity.

Is the Minister aware that in an article recently published in the Review of Economics and Statistics it is argued that our export markets are ones in which an increase in local income generates a relatively small increase in demand for British exports and that in this respect we are in an unfavourable position compared with other industrial countries. Is it not urgent that the Government should produce their own figures and their own estimates to show whether they agree or not with that argument?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some transfer of our exports to more rapidly growing economies, but that, in any case, since this study was done the whole situation has been greatly changed by devaluation. I would have thought that in the existing circumstances what is most important are the supply conditions and supply elasticities rather than income elasticities.

Is it not a fact that, even granted that demand has to some extent overtaken the actual figures which Professor Houthakker quoted in his article, the Board of Trade simply does not accept the main thesis, that the ratio of income elasticity to demand for imports and exports in this country is substantially out of line with that of our major competitors?

We have examined these figures. We note that these two authors themselves have actually suggested two alternative and different elasticities. Many economists disagree with the analysis and the calculations. It does not seem to me that one can really base a judgment on the future economy on these calculations. The real question is how exports and imports are moving at the moment.

Is not the Minister dodging the issue by that answer? Particularly talking about imports, are we not really talking about income elasticity and demand for imports? With incomes practically unchanged for 18 months or two years in real terms because of the Government squeeze we do not know how elasticity has moved.

Surely what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, as are other hon. Members in this House, is how the visible balance of trade is moving. We do know that, following devaluation, the volume of imports has become very stable and that the volume of exports is rising. That is a fact which differs from the implications of that particular article. Surely it is the facts that we ought to go for, rather than some theoretical calculation which is challenged by many experts.

In view of the errors which have currently appeared, is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is now able to obtain accurate figures in so far as exporters are fully recording their exports? Is he satisfied about the compensating error that there must be in view of the figure of the balance item? Would he consider that this is accounted for by evasion of exchange control, and is he not aware that it is a fact that for most people it is not too difficult to obtain whatever funds they like abroad for a certain price?

Well, as my hon. Friend knows, since the discovery of the under-recording error a 100 per cent. check is being introduced. It is impossible to say yet that this has eliminated under-recording, and we do not expect to till the end of the year. If my hon. Friend will draw my attention to the facts on which the last part of his question was based I will, of course, examine them.

Is not the Minister of Sate being very detached? The Board of Trade Journal itself published an analysis only a few months ago which showed that for every 1 per cent. of growth in our gross national product, imports rise in value by 1⅔ per cent., which is the essence of Professor Houthakker's thesis. Is he throwing overboard the Board of Trade Journal's analysis? What will happen to the balance of payments in this country when one Government, or another, allow growth once again?

I do not see that that follows from the article from which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. It is a well known fact that in an industrialised society imports grow faster than the national income. This is part of the process of the distribution of trade, which increases resources available. That does not mean that there is a difference in income elasticity affecting imports and exports in the way those two authors suggest for all purposes. I suggest that it is better to go for the facts of what is happening to our exports and imports at the moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much of the loan capital made available to the Overseas Marketing Corporation has been drawn upon; and if he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in what countries the Overseas Marketing Corporation has already set up marketing offices; and to which countries it proposes to extend its operations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases the Overseas Marketing Corporation has so far been successful in bringing together British manufacturers and foreign buyers; and what size of British firms have been involved.

So far, the Overseas Marketing Corporation has drawn on £225,000 of the loan capital made available to it. The corporation has set up marketing offices in France, Germany and Italy; it has an interest in a distributorship in Sweden and has representatives active in Eastern Europe. The question of representation in other countries is a matter for commercial judgment by the corporation, but it is at present consolidating its position in Europe. The corporation is, of course, concentrating on manufacturers of goods for which export opportunities exist who lack marketing resources and expertise.

How do these developments compare with the rate of progress which was anticipated when the corporation was set up 20 months ago?

It is difficult to make theoretical comparisons. The corporation has been very active in setting up an efficient and workmanlike set of distributorships throughout Europe, and, as far as we can see, they are beginning to work extremely well.

May I put to the Parliamentary Secretary a question on an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 11th June, the author of which expresses deep concern at not being able to get a release or report from the corporation? I appreciate that the corporation is autonomous, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary regard this as a deplorable state of affairs?

We must accept that if the unit was set up as a commercial unit, which it was, it does publish certain figures. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular instance which he would like us to investigate, we will certainly do so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate a programme to encourage young management to acquire a greater understanding of European marketing problems as a means of stimulating the British export effort.

I endorse the need to encourage young management to acquire a greater understanding of European marketing problems, but I do not think that, given the marketing courses already available, a specific initiative is required by the Board of Trade.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that not a great deal must have been done in the way she suggests? Should not the British National Export Council take an initiative to stimulate the provision of such courses?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the National Marketing Council was assisted by the Board of Trade in 1966 and 1967 as a pump-priming operation, but it now runs very successful courses without any financial assistance from us.

Would it not be far better if some companies spent more money on educating management instead of putting shareholders' money into the coffers of the Conservative Party?

I am afraid that some companies do waste their money from time to time—and get a very poor return. The whole question of management is, in the final analysis, one for industry, and one hopes that industry will energetically undertake the job of training.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a general direction to the Monopolies Commission to hear oral evidence before making a report on the professions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a general direction to the Monopolies Commission that, in considering the practices of the professions, it shall hear oral evidence from the professional bodies concerned.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations from what professions he has received concerning the reference to the Monopolies Commission of the practices of the professions; and what reply he has sent.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of professional bodies about the Commission's conduct of this inquiry, and, in particular, about its decision not to hear oral evidence. He has replied that he cannot intervene. His power to give general directions to the commission does not extend to its conduct of general inquiries into the effect on the public interest of a specified class of practice.

Is not it important that when the commission comes to report on these professions the professions should feel that the report has been made in the fullest possible knowledge of all the facts? Is not it therefore regrettable that the commission should now appear to be discriminating against the professions by departing from its usual practice of hearing oral evidence?

As I said in my Answer, my right hon. Friend cannot intervene in the way the commission conducts this inquiry, although the method of inquiry will be stated in the report. The Board of Trade has no power to act on the report of an inquiry conducted under this Section of the Act. That power can be taken only by legislation, and, depending upon the nature of the report, further investigation might be necessary before such action was taken.

Is not it a reflection on the President of the Board of Trade for making a reference on such an enormous scale that the Monopolies Commission has not been able to carry out the normal principles of natural justice of any investigatory procedure, and has been unable to tell the bodies being investigated what is the prima facie case against them, if any, and give them an opportunity to comment on it? Does not this mean, particularly in the light of the Minister of State's answer, that it is all a great waste of time?

In defence of my right hon. Friend I should say at once that this reference was made by his predecessor; but I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We must see the report and how the commission tackles it before coming to a conclusion that natural justice has in any way been breached. I am aware of the anxieties of the professions in this respect, but they have not seen the report. I am sure that the commission is well aware of the requirements of natural justice.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think, when six leading professional bodies, including the General Council of the Bar, have made representations, that natural justice has not been done, that this calls for some attention on the part of his right hon. Friend?

My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. I think that the hon. Gentleman should see the report before jumping to this conclusion. It will not be possible to act on the report in view of the section of the Act under which this general type of inquiry is made. Various things may have to be done before action is appropriate—possibly further inquiries, possibly consultation with the professions.

While I recognise the independence of the commission, does my hon. Friend feel that hon. Members of this House should take the same attitude to restrictive practices in the professions as they do to those of the trade unions? Can he say when the commission will report?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I do not know when the commission will report on this subject.

The hon. Gentleman says that we should wait for the report before saying anything. Does not he realise that if the inquiry has been made in the manner in which apparently it is being made, the report when it is published will command little respect? Will he therefore, even if he has no power of direction, indicate the views of the Members of this House about the way in which the inquiry is being conducted?

I am sure that the views of hon. Members will be noted, just as the Monopolies Commission no doubt noted the representations made to it by the professions. Whether the report will command little respect is something that we cannot tell until we see the report. I am merely suggesting to the House that it might be advisable to wait for the report.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now publish the results of the departmental study on the effectiveness of the investment grants system.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the study being made by his Department of the effectiveness of investment grants is completed; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now publish the conclusions of the studies being undertaken by his Department on present investment incentives.

I hope the study will be completed by the summer of next year. I will consider the question of publication at the time.

Is that not a very long time to have to wait? May not the delay be due to the fact that this policy is quite clearly embarrassing the Government because we are spending enormous amounts of public money with very little result? Would the Minister consider reverting to a system of investment allowances which has the blessing of the fact that it is consistent with our entry into the E.E.C., whereas the investment grant system is clearly in flagrant contradiction of its rules?

On the contrary, I believe that the investment grant system has raised the level of investment in manufacturing industry. Indeed, some evidence of this is shown in the figures for the fourth quarter of 1968.

Did the Minister note what the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday about the cotton textile industry, in which he declined to extend extra investment grants in relation to cotton textile machinery, but allowed it a higher rate of depreciation? Why does he not extend this excellent example to the rest of British industry?

My right hon. Friend yesterday did not extend depreciation to the textile industry. He said that there would be consultation on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I recommend hon. Gentlemen to read my right hon. Friend's statement, which referred to consultations between the industry and the Inland Revenue. As for the other point, the reason why additional investment grants could not be extended to the textile industry was that this claim could equally have been made by other industries. We reserve the premium rate of investment grant to the development areas where it appears to have the effect of raising the amount of investment in the development areas by a substantial degree.

Whatever the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend take good care not to be seduced by any clamour for additions to or modifications of the investment grant system? Will he recognise that the best thing he could do would be to scrap the lot and cut taxation accordingly?

I do not agree with that proposition. I also note that the previous Government had a system of investment allowances which was ineffective and which, presumably, had some effect on the level of taxation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds whether or not they want investment incentives. The difference between this system of investment incentives and its predecessor is that this one is effective.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a very large proportion of investment grants is paid out to oil and chemical companies on the equipment they use which they would probably put in in any event, companies which employ very few people for each £ of investment grant spent? Could not investment grants discriminate more in favour of those who provide more jobs, and particularly those who set up manufacturing plant and machinery?

I am aware that the investment grant system is highly capital-intensive, possibly less so than its predecessor. Where I do not agree with my hon. Friend is on his suggestion that we should not give substantial encouragement to investment in highly capital-intensive industries, many of which provide a significant proportion of our exports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received for financial assistance under the Local Employment Act from applicants whose business involves the sale of intoxicating liquor; and what was the total amount of grant given.

These figures are not readily available. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that following the statement of my right hon. Friend on 4th July, 1968, most service industry projects are no longer eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Acts.—[Vol. 767, c. 269–70.]

But is it not a great pity that these figures are not available? Many of these licensed premises, which do not provide residential accommodation, were constructed by private monopoly brewers who have been subsidised by the British taxpayer. The effect of S.E.T does not appear to have made much difference in this respect.

I am sure that that point ought to be borne in mind. My own impression is that there has not been a great deal of Government money poured into licensed premises. Some of my hon. Friends might think that that is a shame.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now announce the conclusion of his review of the control of inertia selling.

We are continuing to explore possible remedies for this problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a number of complaints about this irritating practice centred on very few firms, three in particular, which shows that it is not just a matter of errors being made? Is she further aware that New York has an admirable and simple law to stop this undesirable practice and will she give an assurance that she will not be inert about the matter?

We are actively considering the New York law to see whether this will answer some of the difficulties which arise in the case of inertia selling. I have asked the hon. Member if he has any suggestions to make to my Department on which we could act.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be very simple to solve this by saying that if someone sends goods through the post which the recipient does not need, then he assumes that they are his?

This is certainly one method which could be used, and we are examining the legislation that New York State has brought in to see whether it would cover the problem. There are difficulties. If someone got his next door neighbour's groceries by mistake, I do not think the neighbour would be very happy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which non-Commonwealth countries at present receive Commonwealth preference trading benefits.

The non-Commonwealth countries included in the Commonwealth preference area are Burma, the Republic of South Africa, Western Samoa, and the Republic of Ireland.

In view of the considerable financial damage that the Republic of South Africa has done, and continues to do, to this country by torpedoeing the Rhodesian sanctions policy, why on earth should we continue giving Commonwealth preferences to it?

The decision to maintain the trade agreement with South Africa was made when South Africa left the Commonwealth. It has been reiterated by myself and many other Ministers that the Government have no intention of altering the current trade agreement with South Africa.

Is not trade with South Africa of the very greatest economic importance to this country and would it not be singularly foolish to damage that trade?

I have answered this and similar questions many times in the House and have constantly said that we have two obligations here. The first is to adhere rigidly to the arms ban laid down by the United Nations and the second is, within that policy, to encourage normal civilian trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the plans Cunard has for the disposal and future use of s.s. "Queen Elizabeth I".

Cunard has recently announced the sale of the ship to United States interests for nearly £3·6 million. The purchasers have said that the ship is to be converted to a resort and convention centre in Florida.

Did the hon. Gentleman ascertain why Cunard would not give an option to inspect to prospective purchasers, including the Anglo-Australian consortium, whose purchase of the ship would have provided much employment for British seamen and would have assisted the balance of payments and emigration to Australia?

I am not aware that Cunard behaved in that way, nor why it did, if it did. This was a commercial transaction, and Cunard accepted the best price it could get.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions there have been to date in Scotland under the Trade Descriptions Act.

By 18th July we had been notified of 18 cases in which it was intended to prosecute in Scotland, but as far as I am aware only two of these cases have yet been heard.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply is very disappointing? Can she say what increased publicity is being undertaken by the Board of Trade to give consumers information about their rights under this legislation and how much it is costing?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Board of Trade has been very active in publicising this legislation. We have printed a great many leaflets, which have been available free of charge to consumers and consumer associations from local authorities. We are doing everything we can to publicise the existence of this protection for the shopper.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this legislation has brought a good deal of help to the housewife through getting rid of much misleading description, especially since her excellent broadcast?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In England there have been 546 intended prosecutions up to the same date. Whether this simply proves that in Scotland the ladies are tougher shoppers I would not like to say.

Is it not a fact that the Trade Descriptions Act is working extremely well and the very few prosecutions are evidence of this and of the fact that the weights and measures inspectors throughout the country have done a very good job of work, persuading traders not to commit offences rather than prosecuting them for those offences?

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The weights and measures authorities have done a magnificent job on this legislation. They have been encouraged to discuss the problems of misdescription with the traders before undertaking prosecutions. This is the right way.

Do not the figures show that Scottish traders are pretty honest?

It is very invidious to make comparisons between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but I am sure that Scottish shopkeepers will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in the negotiations with Greece on the sale of a nuclear power station.

Negotiations are continuing between the various interests concerned, and I hope that they will be concluded successfully in the course of this year.

Can my right hon. Friend answer two questions? First, is the agreement inevitably tied up with the purchase of Greek tobacco by the United Kingdom, and, second, will he make it clear that, whether this agreement goes through or not, Her Majesty's Government in no way condone the bestial activities and practices of the military régime?

On the first point, the two sets of negotiations are not inevitably linked, but they are certainly very closely linked. On the second part of the question, I make it clear again, as I have made it clear many times before, that the fact that we encourage trade with Greece does not in any way alter the very strong feelings which I and my colleagues have about the nature of the Greek Government.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that a Greek general would be persona non grata if he came as an ambassador to this country and that this would not be affected by the nuclear agreement?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather undesirable to criticise foreign governments? If we are to consider Governments in Greece perhaps he would like to read the history of the Communist rebellion there immediately after the war?

asked the President of the Board of Trade by what means he collates the findings of his Department on expected changes in industrial investment with broadly similar surveys conducted by other organisations.

The expectations for investment reported by industry to my Department are compared with the changes in the responses to questions about investment intentions between successive surveys of other inquiries. This and other relevant information is used by the Government in making their own assessments.

Since in certain respects the Government have now become converts to the Chicago School of Economics, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of gloom on the benches behind him about the future prospects for industrial investment in Britain? Can he say whether the broad consensus of evidence available suggests that the outlook is nothing like as gloomy as some of his hon. Friends suggest?

The broad consensus on this subject is in line with the Board of Trade's last investment intentions inquiry. This is in line with what the C.B.I. has said and with what the Financial Times, on a very much smaller sample, said recently—that there would be an increase in investment in 1969 over 1968.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the abnormally high interest rates are having any effect on current investment decisions?

They may have an effect on certain investment decisions, but our information suggests a substantial rise in investment this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that local weights and measures authorities are not prosecuting those responsible for advertisements for eggs produced under battery conditions which misleadingly suggest that the eggs are produced under ordinary farm conditions; and if he will seek to amend the Trade Descriptions Act so as to enable him to take such proceedings himself.

We have no reason to suppose that local weights and measures authorities are not properly carrying out their duties in this respect. I understand that prosecution is pending in at least one such case. The Act already enables any Government Department—or indeed any other person—to prosecute.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who deplore the battery system receive eggs which are either advertised as "fresh farm eggs" or labelled as "free range eggs" when they are battery-produced eggs? Can she suggest any way of combating this exploitation of the public by deliberate dissembling?

I agree that this is most reprehensible. It is my impression that many of these labels have been removed since the Act came on to the Statute Book and that the wording is now different for the sale of eggs. If my hon. Friend has any evidence I suggest that he brings it to the attention of the local weights and measures authority.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the level of investment in retail distribution is adequate in relation to consumer expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Investment intentions as reported to the Board of Trade indicate a rise in investment in 1969 and 1970 both by the distributive and service trades as a whole and by the retail trade itself. There is no reason to suppose that consumption is being frustrated by the lack of investment in retailing.

Since the service industries in general and retail distribution in particular are discriminated against by S.E.T and the Government's investment grant policy, is it an accident or design of socialist planning that the service sectors are the principal growth sectors for capital investment under this Government?

Investment in retail distribution has risen recently. That clearly is welcome to the hon. Gentleman, just as it is welcome to us. I am glad to see that this investment is rising without the assistance of investment grants.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of the value of exports lost through official and unofficial strikes, respectively, during each of the past four years.

It is not possible to make a reliable estimate.

This is an important matter. Does not a rough estimate of the figures illustrate the need for legislation to cure what has become known abroad as "the English sickness"?

No, sir. The question of legislation is a separate point which has been much discussed. As for the "English sickness", the House must get the matter in perspective. Of course, it is true that strikes can do damage to our export trade, particularly in sensitive industries like the docks. It must be an object of national policy to reduce the number, especially of unofficial strikes. There are two points which are constantly ignored in the Press. The first is that the loss of exports is frequently made up afterwards. The second is that almost all the major countries with which we are in competition have strikes which are equally damaging to their exports.

Is my hon. Friend aware that more good would be done if he would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on the matter of finding out the cause of strikes?

Yes, sir; I agree.

Can the President of the Board of Trade say how we are getting on with the problem of the container ships? Are our container ships still held up in the port of Rotterdam? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the flow of trade in the new container ships is carried on without all this interference from unofficial strikes and other strikes in the Docks?

If the hon. Lady will put down a Question about container ships—

But the right hon. Gentleman ought to know the answer.

If the hon. Lady will put down a Question on that subject, which bears little relation to the original Question, I shall be very happy to answer it.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much damage to the economy has been done by the export of capital by private investors which could have been invested in this country?

That again appears to be a somewhat different question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost of the Roskill inquiry; and if, in view of the consensus of evidence already submitted to the Commission in favour of Foulness and the lack of local opposition, he will instruct the Commission to call off the inquiry into the other three listed inland sites and to confine their inquiries to the advantages and disadvantages of Foulness as compared with other coastal sites.

We expect the cost to the Government to be about £1,000,000. In order to put this sum into perspective, I should say that the direct investment alone in a third London Airport is likely ultimately to exceed £200,000,000. The answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir".

I understand that to start with the Government's cost was a small part of the total cost of this particular inquiry, and would my hon. Friend not accept that an inland site is unsuitable and that it should be eliminated at this stage of the inquiry, and that the remainder of the inquiries could fruitfully look at Foulness in comparison with other possible coastal sites?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is, "Yes"; to the second, "No".

Taking into account the future growth of traffic, what is the latest possible date that the third London Airport or home counties airport has to be available to deal with this very difficult situation?

In broad terms, we are talking about the mid-'seventies.

Does my hon. Friend recall the very strong representations indeed which have been made against an airport on this site from people in Essex and Kent, not least because of the damaging effect this would have on the holiday trade, and on people enjoying comparatively inexpensive holidays there? With respect, any suggestion along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would be regarded as very much worse than the Stansted affair?

I agree that this is by no means a black and white issue. I think the experience of the last month has confirmed most people in their view that it was a very wise decision to set up an inquiry of this kind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to improve Turn-house Airport, Edinburgh.

Not at present.

What can be done in the short term to avoid embarrassing delays at the time of next year's Commonwealth Games?

In the short run there is not a great deal which can be done, but, as my hon. Friend knows, complex problems are involved here, and a great deal of capital expenditure is at stake.

Is the Minister aware that holding back this much needed investment in this important Scottish airport is also holding back the returns which will come to the Scottish economy, and to the British economy?

Yes, I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but we have to look carefully at the benefits, and at the timing, if public expenditure is to be wisely incurred.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which airports in Great Britain are equipped to receive Trident airliners, using automatic landing equipment, installed by British European Airways at a cost of £6 million.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick have improved instrument landing systems to support automatic landing in Trident aircraft in runway visibilities down to 600 metres, and one of the Heathrow runways has additional equipment which permits operations in lower visibility. One runway at Liverpool is expected to reach this standard shortly and Manchester should follow early in 1970.

Granted low cloud and East coast fog, should not Edinburgh be the next in line?

I would not care to comment on whether it should have the top priority. My hon. Friend has made this point to me, and, as he knows, we are giving serious consideration to it.

In view of the preeminence of Liverpool Airport among non-British Airport Authority airports, would not the Minister consider it a tragedy if Liverpool Airport were to be closed?

That is a totally different question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what requests he has received for financial assistance for the airport of Liverpool.

None, Sir, although the question was broadly explored at a meeting held with representatives of the city earlier this year. Assistance is already given by way of the aerodrome navigation services provided by the National Air Traffic Control Service at an estimated net loss in the current year of about £200,000.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the upkeep of the Liverpool Airport is a very heavy burden on Liverpool's rates? Will he bring to the attention of the licensing authorities that Merseyside can never be in the same passenger catchment area as Manchester?

Yes, we are fully aware of Liverpool's problems. I understand that a Report by McKinsey's will be considered by the city council very shortly. The hon. Gentleman raises a much wider question when he asks us to give directions to the A.T.L.B.

Is the Minister aware that Liverpool Airport, in contrast with most municipal airports, has never had any financial help from the Government, except, as the Minister has said, for navigational aids? Would he not consider it to be undesirable if this fine airport, which in a decade must become part of the national network, were to be closed because the ratepayers could no longer bear the burden?

It would be a pity if the airport were to be closed. But we must recognise that some of the investment in airports has been entered into with perhaps too little consideration of the likely growth of traffic and also of the competitive achievements of the railways.