asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the volume and value of milk products imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 to the latest convenient date.

63,000 tons; 61,000 tons; and, in January to September 1970, 58,000 tons. The corresponding values were £17 million. £16 million and £15 million.

Is there not now a strong case for an immediate levy on milk products coming from all countries, to give a stimulus to farmers in this country and, in particular, to the hard-pressed farmers of Northern Ireland, for example, in the production of butter?

My hon. Friend should address the question of levies to my right right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I agree with him that a stimulus is needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to protect the interests of British firms producing electrical tools.

No special steps have been requested by the firms concerned.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment caused irritation and annoyance, for which his apology has made some amends? Is the Minister prepared to advise his other Ministerial colleagues to be careful of their language in future?

My right hon. Friend has already written to the chairman of the company concerned. I have no reason to believe that the company will not be able to meet any competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement concerning the transfer of certain British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation routes.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said during the Second Reading debate on the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill.

That is not much of an answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) is regarded as being designed to circumvent the Acts of 1960 and 1967 and is looked upon as an execrable and treacherous measure by all those who work in B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.? Is he further aware that if the measure is carried out it will not only damage the morale of the British air corporations but will give succour to their foreign competitors? Will the Government drop this incredible and remarkable anti-British attitude which they so often exhibit?

I do not agree with any of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The Bill in question is designed not to circumvent the previous provisions but to reinforce the Government's position.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if B.O.A.C. could shake itself free of industrial troubles it would more than make up the loss of revenue which might result from the Bill? Would not the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) be better employed in promoting industrial harmony in place of strife?

It is correct to say that the proposed transfer is of a very small proportion of the routes of B.O.A.C. I quite agree with the comments in the latter part of the supplementary question.

Do I understand that the Government are still extracting information on routes and route profitability from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and handing it over to Caledonian so that Caledonian can pick and choose the routes it would like? Do I gather that after this disgraceful operation is complete, the right hon. Gentleman will leave it to the Air Transport Licensing Board to transfer the routes? Is not that putting the licensing procedure on the level of a farce?

Discussions are proceeding with both B.O.A.C. and Caledonian, but not quite in the framework mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. When a decision is reached Caledonian will need to apply to the A.T.L.B. for the routes in question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement on fuel supply prospects this winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, having regard to the fall in coal output caused by widespread mining strikes, whether he will now make a further statement on electricity supplies for industry, commerce and homes in the forthcoming winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the present situation with regard to the adequacy of coal stocks for this winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of coal supplies as a result of industrial action by coal-miners.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has to prevent a shortage of winter fuel.

The margins for solid fuel, which were already extremely narrow, have been further reduced by the recent unofficial strikes. Direct losses are about 2½ million tons, but the total will be higher. Severe weather or further interruption in supply could, therefore, lead to real difficulties. Supplies of fuel oil, though tight, should be adequate.

I am grateful for that answer. Is it not a fact that, alone among the primary fuel supplying industries, the private enterprise oil companies are achieving a substantial increase in the level of supplies this winter compared with the level forecast in 1967, despite unforeseeable difficulties in several parts of the world?

Yes, the oil companies are certainly bringing the oil which is needed to this country. As my hon. Friend knows, they are experiencing some difficulty because of the rising cost of freight.

Can my right hon. Friend say what is the likely effect of the coal shortage on electricity generation during the winter months and to what extent load shedding, which has in the past caused so much hardship, will be indulged in? Having regard to the number of dual-fired power stations in Britain, will those dual-tired stations swing straight over to oil instead of coal should there be any shortage of electricity supplies?

The C.E.G.B. coal stocks are below the corresponding figure for this time last year. In its view, even after taking into account further supplies during the rest of this winter, there is no margin to meet any contingency. Therefore, the position is worrying.

Would the Minister not agree that the way to safeguard coal supplies would be to try to inject some confidence into the industry—something that the Minister has signally failed to do to date? Is he not aware that it does not inspire confidence in the industry when the Tory Government give hints that they are prepared to dismantle the coal industry, and that the miners will reject that policy?

The Coal Industry Bill will be debated later this week.

In view of the problems of fuel shortages this winter, can the Minister confirm or deny whether Lord Robens has been reappointed for a further five years? Secondly, if Lord Robens has been reappointed, could the Minister say whether Lord Robens will accept the doctrine embodied in the Tories' new Coal Industry Bill?

An announcement in answer to this question will be given at the appropriate time.

The Minister made no reference to the technical difficulties with the big 500 mW sets or to the corrosion at the magnox power stations. Could he say what effect this is likely to have on C.E.G.B. performance?

Yes, Sir. Briefly, the technical problems encountered are being overcome. The difficulties experienced by the magnox power stations have been the subject of a report. I hope to be able to answer this matter is slightly more detail during the Second Reading debate on Thursday.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of those replies, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, having regard to fall in coal output caused by widespread mining strikes, whether he will now make a further statement on winter fuel prospects for industry, commerce and homes.

The steel industry is apprehensive about supplies, particularly long term, of coking coal. The margins of foundry coke are very narrow. The difficulties already being experienced with solid smokeless fuels have been made worse. Gas supplies are secure.

Whereas we can import coal—and, marginally, are doing so—does not my hon. Friend agree that we can import hardly any electricity? In those circumstances, will he consider giving a direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board that it should have abundant supplies of fuel oil available in order to work every oil-fired station, every dual-fired station on oil and every nuclear station to maximum capacity to avoid the use of coal and to supply enough electricity for the winter months?

That is primarily a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. Many applications for conversion have already been submitted to me. I am considering them at present.

Does not the hon. Member agree that so long as we have the continuing presence of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) we have no need to import natural gas? In view of the reference in the Question to widespread strikes, will the Minister take the opportunity to pay tribute—overdue tribute—to the organisation and constitution of the National Union of Mineworkers, and its leadership for the bloody hard work that every member of that union undertakes, day after day and year after year?

I readily pay tribute to the hard work of those who are working in the mines, but the other questions are properly directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he now has for strengthening the forces of competition and for improving the surveillance of monopolies and mergers.

I hope to make a statement shortly.

Could my right hon. Friend confirm that his proposals will provide for a speeding up of the work of the investigatory bodies in future?

Certainly we are currently investigating how we can speed up the inquiries and the whole impact of the situation into the formulation of better competition.

Could the Secretary of State give an assurance that this statement will be made before Christmas? Since this is supposed to be an important part of Government policy, it seems strange that we have to wait so long for it.

I shall make every endeavour to make that statement before Christmas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has taken to secure new industrial development in Millom; and if he will make a statement.

The prospects for developments at Millom have been brought to the attention of a number of industrialists inquiring about new locations. Three firms have the area under active consideration at the present time. Every effort will continue to be made to attract suitable industry to the area.

Is not the Minister aware that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer, particularly in view of the mileage already made by the Conservative Party out of the closure of Millom Hematite? Is he not also aware that almost 2,000 men regularly travel from Millom to places like Barrow, Whitehaven and Ulverston, involving them in round trips every day of 50 to 60 miles, and that these costs are having a very deleterious effect on family incomes in the town?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed with the reply. I thought that it indicated what is the case, that we regard the situation as serious and are doing our best to help. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the closing of the Millom Hematite Iron and Ore Company took place in 1968 when the Labour Government were in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of Government aid to industry in West and South Cumberland from October 1964 to October 1970.

This information is not collected on a county basis, nor for the period mentioned. For the Northern development area as a whole, Government preferential assistance to industry in the six years ending 31st March 1970 amounted to some £269 million.

That answer is again unsatisfactory. Surely the Minister should be aware that Questions of this nature can be answered. Secondly, will he give any guarantee that the level of aid to industry in these areas in the next few years will not be less than it has been hitherto?

We will do our best to help this area as it has been helped in the past. As the hon. Gentleman can see from my answer, a great deal of public money has been invested. The new form of incentives produced by the Government will direct money to the creation of new jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken to assess the implications of the decision by the Decca Company to reduce its activity in the area of navigational aids for ships and aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware of any intention of the company to reduce its activity in the field of marine navigational aids. On the aviation side, some of the company's pioneering work has failed to obtain international recognition, and in these circumstances I regard the company's decision to concentrate effort and investment on those airborne aids which are already finding markets abroad as one to be welcomed.

Will my right hon. Friend investigate the possibility that if the airborne aids have not so far acquired international recognition, this may in part be due to the lack of support given to them in this country?

I do not think my hon. Friend is being entirely fair, because in almost every case we have helped either through B.E.A. or through B.O.A.C., or by any other method, to try to get greater international recognition for the work Decca has been doing.

Is this airborne equipment eligible for launching aid?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to stop collusive tendering in the electrical contracting industry and the agreements made between major companies to delude public authorities and the practice by which firms agree to submit unsuccessful tenders under a financial arrangement with the successful tenderer.

As I told the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) on 9th November, these practices are already covered by existing legislation.—[Vol. 806, c. 2.]

Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much money is involved in the 32 cases that were recently before the Restrictive Practices Court, whether it is thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of £s, what arrangements are being made to refund this money to the public authorities which have been grossly overcharged, and whether any criminal proceedings are contemplated?

The public authorities concerned are themselves able to undertake the necessary processes to recover losses they have sustained. This matter does not fall directly under the control of my Department, because the Restrictive Practices Court is a statutory organisation on its own. It has its own responsibilities. Therefore the matter is within its hands, not within mine.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mindful of your guidance that points of order should be raised at the end of Question Time and not during it, may I give notice that as the answer to Question No. 9 was not satisfactory I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. I told the hon. Gentleman last week that giving notice in such a way is a work of supererogation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many new jobs are expected to arise in the Northern Region from the industrial development certificates issued during the three months ending 31st October 1970;

In the period 1st August to 31st October, 1970, industrial development certificates for 1 million square feet were issued in the Northern Region. The schemes concerned are estimated by the applicants to provide 1,580 additional jobs, 1,200 of them for males. No certificates were issued during the same period in the employment exchange areas of Bishop Auckland, Barnard Castle and Shildon, which most nearly correspond to the Bishop Auckland constituency.

In view of the disappointing figures for South-West Durham, would the Minister give consideration to asking the Regional Controller to make a special effort to visit the local authorities to see what could be done by way of more co-operation between local authorities, the county council and his Department?

Yes, Sir. I will certainly do that. The situation is being very closely watched at the moment. The jobs expected to arise during the next few years in authorised new buildings in the Northern Region as a whole total about 39,000, of which over 4,000 are in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area.

When the Minister says that the development certificates which have been given represented just over 1,000 new jobs between the beginning of August and the end of October in the Northern Region, is he aware that as a consequence of the Minister's attitude we lost as many jobs at Palmers Hebburn, that Glacier Metals and British Oxygen have closed, and that if closures go on at this pace it will be necessary for the Government to redouble their efforts to maintain the present employment level, let alone reduce unemployment?

The Question was about industrial certificates and the investment measures designed to meet problems created by closure and unemployment.

Will the Minister accept that if the development areas are to get the projects they deserve, it will only be through the strict observance of an i.d.c. policy? Could he give an absolute assurance that his Department will ensure that the i.d.c. policy is observed as strictly as was done by the Labour Government.

The i.d.c. policy is under review with the rest of our regional policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he now expects to receive the report of the Roskill Commission on the Third London Airport.

I am informed that the Commission hopes to submit its report to the Government by the turn of the year.

Will the Minister state what procedure will be followed thereafter? In view of the importance of this planning decision to the South-East, will the Government allow time for the matter to be debated both in the country and in the House before making up their mind on the Roskill recommendations?

When the report is received it will be considered very carefully indeed. We are conscious of the urgency which surrounds this whole problem and also of the desire and the need for it to be fully debated in the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be adequate time after publication of the report for public interest to debate the matter before it is debated in the House?

I understand that there is tremendous public interest in this subject. But the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that delays can also be of the utmost disturbance to people at large. Therefore, the Government feel that they must act with due promptitude.

Would it not be most helpful if my right hon. Friend indicated at the same time as he publishes the report that he would be prepared to put the third London Airport at Foulness and so alleviate any anxiety which will lie with inland sites?

I think that we must wait for the report to come out first. Clearly, the Government will be very much moved in their decision by the recommendations in the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish more up-to-date pamphlets about the record of the European Free Trade Association.

These are the responsibility of the E.F.T.A. Secretariat in Geneva. Up-to-date records are published in the Secretariat's Bulletin and in E.F.T.A. annual reports. In the United Kingdom these and other publications are available free on request from the Department's E.F.T.A. Information Centre.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I see these bulletins and publications regularly. But as there appears to be a conspiracy of silence by successive Governments about the achievements of E.F.T.A. and the increase in E.F.T.A. trade, may I ask whether the Minister thinks that at this time, when the Common Market negotiations are becoming more crucial, it would be a matter of fair balance if his Department were to take some initiative?

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady reads the E.F.T.A. bulletins with such care. There has indeed been a remarkable increase in trade with E.F.T.A. I cannot speak for the former Government, but we have certainly used this success on a number of occasions in speeches and in other ways. It is almost exactly comparable with the increase in trade with the E.E.C. in percentage terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the recent European Free Trade Association conference at Geneva, which he attended.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his visit to the European Free Trade Association Conference at Geneva.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on 10th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 116–17.]

As the communiqué issued after the meeting clearly indicates that the E.F.T.A. countries are anxious to continue the liberalisation of world trade and to support G.A.T.T. as a means of doing this, is it not clear that the aims and objects of the Government in getting into the Common Market on any terms at all conflict with the liberalisation of world trade? Does the Minister think, therefore, that either our representatives at E.F.T.A. meetings should be changed or, better still, we should stop this attempt to get into the Common Market?

Having attended the E.F.T.A. Conference for the first time, I can assure the hon. Lady that this was not the view expressed by any E.F.T.A. country during the course of the two days.

What was not?

There was a great deal—

What was not?

Order.

The view expressed by the hon. Lady, that we should give up any attempt to get into the Common Market to do better with the E.F.T.A. countries. All the countries concerned were very much interested in the way that our negotiations were proceeding, and most were looking forward to having their own negotiations in the following few weeks. I think that every country there felt that there was an enormous potential for increased European trade as a whole.

In view of the increase in E.F.T.A. trade, to which the Minister referred, and the great value of E.F.T.A. to this country, will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that the Government will not reach any settlement with the E.E.C. which would involve the re-erection of tariff barriers between this country and other members of E.F.T.A.?

The right hon. Gentleman knows about E.F.T.A. and other matters sufficiently well to realise that that is an assurance which I could not conceivably give at this stage.

Why not? Are they to be sold down the river, too?

It is certainly true, as I said to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), that all the countries concerned realise the enormous advantage which would come to European trade as a whole if suitable negotiations could be made all round.

Is not the answer to this problem, which the House goes on and on discussing, a free trade area between the Six and the Seven?

This may well be my hon. Friend's answer, but it is not being discussed anywhere at the moment.

Why not?

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he is keeping the E.F.T.A. countries informed of progress in our negotiations with the E.E.C.?

If the right hon. Gentleman had studied the answer given a short time ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he would have seen that we gave full details to all the E.F.T.A. countries at the E.F.T.A. Council meeting on how the negotiations were going on, and these continue regularly, apart from Ministerial meetings.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will state the subjects of common interest that have been discussed in the last 12 months by member countries of the European Free Trade Association.

In addition to the twice-yearly Ministerial meeting, the E.F.T.A. Council meets weekly to discuss the wide range of subjects of common interest to members. The more important in the past year have included wider economic integration in Europe, international trade policy, Icelandic accession to E.F.T.A. and new measures to improve further the smooth working of the free trade area.

Have not patents, company law and taxation also been discussed? Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show that E.F.T.A. is more than a mere organisation for removing tariffs between members? Have not Her Majesty's Government given an assurance that all the trading and other benefits which have been achieved within E.F.T.A. will, so far as possible, be retained when an agreement is reached with the Community?

"If an agreement is reached with the Community", is, I am sure, what my hon. Friend wanted to say, Many of the points which he has mentioned have been discussed in E.F.T.A., such as company law. In trying to keep the answer short, I could not go into complete detail; but I assure my hon. Friend that it is the desire of everybody in E.F.T.A. to maintain the impetus which we have achieved over the last 10 years in the best possible way in the coming years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that E.F.T.A. still represents our major foothold in Europe? As Sweden has not made application for membership and Norway's application is unlikely to be supported in that country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that our E.F.T.A. links are maintained both before we go into the Common Market and after, if we do?

Our trade with the E.E.C. countries is 50 per cent. greater than with the E.F.T.A. countries, though both are extremely satisfactory from our point of view. I cannot do more than repeat what I have already said; that it is the aim of the E.F.T.A. Council, in the course of the negotiations in which so many of the member countries are involved in one form or another, to increase the total of European trade in the most satisfactory manner.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement upon the result of Iceland joining the European Free Trade Association.

Since Iceland only joined E.F.T.A. on 1st March, 1970, it is much too soon to expect any reliable indication of the results of her accession. But Iceland's trade with her E.F.T.A. partners in the first nine months of this year has shown a substantial and welcome increase in both directions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one feature of Iceland's joining the E.F.T.A. has been the long transitional period given to her? Does he not also agree that this is welcome? Will he see that it becomes a principle of wide application in international trade negotiations?

The point is taken but I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that Iceland is not perhaps normal as an industrial country.

Has Iceland's joining E.F.T.A. had any adverse effect on the British fishing industry?

I think it is true to say that there has been no adverse effect and that the total amount of fillets from Iceland comes within the Scandinavian total.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what percentage has trade increased between the member countries of the European Free Trade Association since it was established.

In terms of U.S. dollars, intra-trade of the European Free Trade Association, as measured by exports, increased by 143 per cent. between 1960 and 1969.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this compares favourably with intra-Common Market trade? Why have the Government not already proposed at Brussels that even in the event of a successful outcome of the negotiations no tariff barriers will be allowed to exist between the Common Market and the E.F.T.A. countries, whether they are in or out of the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct that it compares favourably; indeed, there has been almost exactly the same percentage increase as with the E.E.C. I have no doubt that if there had been no tariff barriers our trade with the E.E.C. countries would have been greatly increased. But the second part of his supplementary question is quite separate and not one for answer today.

Arising from all these questions, can my right hon. Friend remind hon. Members opposite by how much more our own national wealth would have increased if we had been members of the Common Market during the last 10 years compared with the present situation?

That is a hypothetical question but our trade with both E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. has increased in almost exactly the same proportion over the last 10 years, and there is at least a reasonable basis for the assumption that if there had been no trade barriers with the Community our trade with it would have been very much greater.

Is not the reality of this whole business the fact that E.F.T.A. is a free trade area which ignores agriculture, and also, incidentally, certain manufactured goods? Is it not a fact that this strong limitation prevents it going any further—a fact recognised by the E.F.T.A. Council itself—and that it is useless to think of E.F.T.A. as anything like an alternative? Has it not reached the end of the road—a pity, but there it is? Is this fact not recognised by the E.F.T.A. Council itself in the applications that members have put in?

Order. A lengthy supplementary question means that another supplementary question may have to be cut out.

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, the two things are not comparable and it is dangerous to draw analogies from one to another.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the development of trade that has taken place between the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community.

Trade between the two groups doubled in terms of U.S. dollars between 1960 and 1969 and has continued to rise strongly this year. This trade has, however, increased less than trade within each group.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his reasons for believing that a junction between some of the E.F.T.A. group, the destruction of E.F.T.A. and the addition of some of the E.F.T.A. countries to the E.E.C. will increase British trade with the tariff barriers involved?

As my right hon. Friend said just now, the position and the advantages which the E.F.T.A. Agreement contains are sought to be preserved within the framework of the current negotiations with the Community. It is a fact that the Community's tendency to maintain the impetus of intra-trading is perhaps greater than that of E.F.T.A.

Is not this country really after maximising its world trade, and is not its E.E.C. trade only 20 per cent. of its whole trade? Should we not look at the whole thing the Community, E.F.T.A. and the world—in one way?

Our whole purpose is to increase our total world trade. A considerable step towards that increase would be attained by negotiating suitable terms with the Community—and I emphasise the words "suitable terms". They have a very great bearing on this.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made within the European Free Trade Association drafting schemes of reciprocal recognition in the testing of equipment, plant and machinery.

The E.F.T.A. Council is giving final consideration to a scheme covering pressure vessels. Expert groups are making good progress in drafting schemes for gas appliances, marine safety equipment and agricultural machinery.

Does not this progress clearly indicate that, having eliminated tariffs, E.F.T.A. is now capable of eliminating the non-tariff barriers to trade? Is not this the answer to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

This is a very satisfactory development but I agree that non-tariff barriers are the main purpose at the moment of the E.F.T.A. Council deliberations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give more publicity to the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade now being made by the European Free Trade Association.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by the member countries of the European Free Trade Association to remove non-tariff barriers to trade.

Recognising the seriousness of non-tariff barriers to trade, E.F.T.A. is keeping under review its rules of competition and working to reduce technical barriers. Agreements have recently been reached on pharmaceuticals and pressure vessels, and others are in preparation. Every effort is made by the Department and by the E.F.T.A. Secretariat to publicise progress in these fields.

Is it not the case that the progress made in this direction by E.F.T.A. is greater than that being made throughout the rest of the world with regard to such barriers?

I cannot say with certainty about that, but in E.F.T.A., where a very close relationship has been built up over the last 10 years with our partners, we are getting on very well.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that no reasonable person can any longer maintain that Greenwich Mean Time is a non-tariff barrier to trade?

Yes, Sir.

We have had some contradictory answers from the Government today. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that E.F.T.A. is a fine organisation, but he will not promise that there will be no dismantling of it, and that the E.E.C. has 50 per cent. more trade. Is it not ludicrous that we should be told this sort of thing today? Does he not agree that since the majority of our people are against the Common Market, a statement should be made by the Government reflecting the opinion of the British people?

I cannot agree with the last point made by the hon. Gentleman but I can agree that E.F.T.A. has been extremely successful. But saying that does not, to my mind, conflict with saying that we should move from a successful E.F.T.A., if we can, to a very much more successful trading partnership with the whole of Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the last 12 months has any member of the European Free Trade Association invoked the escape or safeguard clauses.

None, Sir.

Is not there a remarkable contrast between the outward-looking approach of E.F.T.A. and the inward-looking approach of E.E.C.? In the light of that fact, will not the Government review their whole approach to the question of applying to join the E.E.C., especially in the light of the pressure of G.A.T.T. and other pressures on tariffs?

No, Sir. The question cannot be considered on such a narrow basis. As I have said, E.F.T.A. has been extremely successful, and from it we hope to build even greater success on a wider basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to promote the distribution of the European Free Trade Association Bulletin.

The Bulletin's distribution is promoted by the Department's E.F.T.A. Information Centre. Present circulation of each issue in the United Kingdom is over 14,000 copies, compared with about 9,000 four years ago.

Is the Minister aware that the wastepaper baskets of hon. Members are full of millions of pounds' worth of E.E.C. propaganda, whereas only 14,000 of these E.F.T.A. pamphlets are reaching hon. Members? Will not he do his duty by the House and ensure that we have as much information about E.F.T.A. as the tripe that we are getting about the E.E.C.?

I hope that the hon. Member will get in touch with his hon. Friend who asked a Question earlier, who found the E.E.C. material extremely valuable. I confirm that many of these documents are going not just to Members of Parliament but to industry, and all over the country. There has been a considerable increase in the demand for them. I am certain that they are useful, and that most are read.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations were made to him about the United Kingdom's import deposit scheme at the last European Free Trade Association meeting of Ministers.

None, Sir.

Does that reply mean that there have been no comments, adverse or otherwise—no remarks at all? Does it mean that the E.F.T.A. countries agree that the import deposit scheme should remain in force, or do they think that it should be terminated?

The Question concerned the last meeting of the European Free Trade Association—the one that I was at. My answer reflects exactly, shortly and accurately what was said then.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the industrial development certificates issued to firms between 1st January, 1968, and 30th June, 1970, wishing to expand or commence business in Gloucester relate to warehousing extentions, and how many relate to manufacturing extensions.

Industrial development certificates for 554,000 square feet were issued in the Gloucester employment exchange area from 1st January, 1968, to 30th June, 1970; of this, 148,000 square feet was for storage and other non-production space. But many warehouses do not require industrial development certificates.

In determining the number of industrial development certificates that my hon. Friend is likely to issue for Gloucester in future, will he bear in mind that a fairly high proportion of those issued over the last two years were for warehousing extensions, which are not very job productive? Will he please be as generous as possible in future in the issue of these certificates for Gloucester, taking into consideration the comparatively high rate of unemployment there?

I will bear in mind the points my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards the contracting activities of electricity boards, in view of the unfair competition which this trading represents with ordinary electrical contractors; and what action he proposes to take.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now give an assurance that he has no plans to dispose of the retailing and contracting activities of electricity and gas boards.

I am considering the present range of the boards' activities, including the treatment of retailing and contracting in their accounts.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, as well as being suppliers of electricity, the electricity boards are able to pass on to their contracting departments many advantages that are not available to small contracting firms trying to compete with them?

That is one of the aspects that I am examining at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply and the reply given by him recently to his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) are causing a great deal of disquiet in the electricity supply and gas industry? Is he also aware that the retailing and contracting activities of these organisations contribute a great deal towards alleviating overhead expenses and also towards keeping the cost of these fuels at a reasonably low level? Will he make up his mind pretty soon?

I am aware of the points that the hon. Member has made about the wish of the industry to know the position as soon as possible, but I want to be certain that I arrive at the right decision and do not take a rushed one.

Does my hon. Friend realise that certain of the contracting activities carried on by electricity boards are settled by the C.E.G.B. at the time of letting and purchase of contracts? Does he not, therefore, think that it is unfortunate that the C.E.G.B. should have decided to break up its central purchasing department and spread it in eight sections?

The question of the way in which the department is organised is a matter for the board. I am looking at these matters in the first instance to ensure that proper information is given through the published accounts.

Will the hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking about the electricity industry as that given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the steel industry; namely, that before making any proposals for the alteration of the structure of the industry he will have consultations with the representatives of the workers in it?

Yes, certainly. I have already had the pleasure of meeting them once, and I gave them that undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from what organisations he has received representations with regard to the decision to end the grant to the Consumer Council; and what replies he has sent.

Representations have been received from a small number of consumer organisations and one other body; the replies explain the reasons for the Government's decision.

Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the statement made yesterday by the Consumer Council to the effect that many firms have already started to round-up prices in anticipation of Decimal Day? What body does he think can replace the Consumer Council in the day-to-day alerting of the public to unjustifiable price increases? I hope that he will not say that it will be the Consumers' Association, because that association has already said that it cannot carry out the work done by the Consumer Council.

The Government's view is that the strengthening of protective measures which has taken place over recent years, coupled with the emergence and development of voluntary consumer organisations, affords a considerable degree of protection for the consumer.

I recognise the demise of the Consumer Council—it was a quite correct decision—but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless, through both Government and industry, seek to support the Consumers' Association so that it can take over some of the other work?

The Government will certainly encourage any body that is seeking voluntarily to help the consumer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to amend the hire purchase laws.

This would not be appropriate in advance of a detailed study of the Report of the Committee on Consumer Credit, which is expected to be ready very shortly.

I appreciate the Minister's reply in that respect, but will he bear in mind that most hire-purchase agreements are completely incomprehensible to me, and to the average man in the street—[Interruption.]—and to lawyers? Will he give an undertaking that he will study the Crowther Report as a matter of urgency?

I have great sympathy with the hon. Member on that point. I give that undertaking—as soon as the report is received.

Is it the intention of my hon. Friend that the Government's own observations on the Crowther Report will be published at the same time, or speedily thereafter?

No, Sir. The Crowther Report will first need a certain amount of study. Before I can answer my hon. Friend I should like to see the report, which is not yet available.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to refuse facilities at British airports to the aircraft of any country which has given refuge and comfort to hijackers of aircraft in any part of the world.

Use of airports for international services is governed by international agreements, and hijacking is an international problem, which I believe is better dealt with by concerted international action on a wide front. Her Majesty's Government are participating in international discussions in which denial of access is one course being examined.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this concerted action has been awaited for a long time, and that very little has happened? Is this not one way in which the Government could act quite independently, to advantage? What we fear above all else is that nothing will happen until the next major hijacking incident.

I appreciate the fear which my hon. Friend expresses about the dangers of this comparatively new form of hijacking to which we have recently been subjected, but we have acted with our allies and friends in this field very quickly since September. Three or four meetings have been taking place, and one is taking place this week, I think, on the international front. It is essential, where these planes are travelling over and landing at vast numbers of countries, that the action should be taken internationally or it will be no use.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Airline Pilots Association and its international counterparts are very keen to see an international aerial piracy convention implemented as quickly as possible? What progress is being made in the United Nations and in the International Civil Aviation Organisation on this topic of aerial piracy? When do we expect to see a convention before us, so that we can implement it ourselves?

It is difficult to give the right hon. Gentleman an absolutely categorical answer, but a meeting is taking place in Paris tomorrow at which this will be the main issue. If, as a result of that, a convention comes forward, we shall certainly study it, and I hope that we and many other countries will ratify it quickly. One cannot act much more quickly than that when dealing with a large number of countries and a very difficult problem.

But if the present talks break down without any sensible solution, would my right hon. Friend assure us that he will consider acting unilaterally on the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) suggested?

There may be some ways in which we can act internationally, but not, I think, directly in the way suggested by this question.

While I recognise the impatience that hon. Members have expressed, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, since September, there has been major progress internationally, and that there is every reason to believe that the present discussions will be fruitful? Despite that, would the hon. Gentleman not also think it reasonable to press members of I.C.A.O. to sign the Tokyo Convention on crimes committed aboard aircraft, which this country has already ratified?

Yes, Sir, I accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the technical arrangements for monitoring noise levels of aircraft approaching or leaving London Airport from the east.

Noise levels of aircraft taking off are measured at specified points related to the first community overflown. Noise levels on the ground of aircraft on approach are a function of aircraft height, and heights of a sample of approaching aircraft are therefore checked by radar.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question was about aircraft approaching London Airport over London and not those taking off? Would he not agree that the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report No. 47 showed that no effective noise monitoring took place? In view of that, would he not make a further statement on how he intends to make noise monitoring effective to the east of London Airport?

The hon. Gentleman probably realises that the problem of aircraft approaching is different from that of aircraft taking off because of the pilot being forced to fly on a glide path, and according to the performance of his engine, which may vary from type of plane to type of plane, he is no longer in control of the noise that the engine may be giving off, although there are limits to which he is expected to keep. Therefore, monitoring on approach is much less likely to have a satisfactory and safe result than when taking off.

Is it not the case that if the right hon. Gentleman would monitor or instruct that monitoring should be done under approaching aircraft, he would at least know the levels of noise? As it is, is he not depriving himself of essential information? Will he not think about this again?

As I said in my answer, a sample of approaching aircraft are checked and the noise levels are not in excess—or only very slightly in excess—of the limits.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the problems for many of our constituents is that they are given the most fatuous answers by his Department—and were by his predecessor's Department as well—and are asked to send details? Would he ask his officials how ordinary people can be excepted to be able to give the details required before prosecution can take place?

I fully accept my hon. Friend's feeling about some of the replies which one has to send. Not having had one from the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) when he was President of the Board of Trade, I cannot express any view on that. But the fact which the House has to realise is that the problem of aircraft noise is perhaps the most difficult single subject which anyone could attempt to solve. It cannot at the moment be solved. The frustration people get on receiving official letters is perhaps a perfectly fair result of the difficulties of giving clear-cut answers and making promises which one knows one can keep.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would assist in overcoming the sense of frustration if he could invent some simple mark which would tell recipients of his letters which of them he thought were fatuous?

I did not suggest that any letter sent by my predecessor or myself was fatuous: I merely said that they were at times disappointing, because there are no direct easy answers. If there were, I would be only too delighted to send some letters which would cheer people up a great deal. The difficulty is that if one moves the noise from one area to another to give relief, all one does is get another 50,000 or 20,000 complaints.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the increase in industrial investment during 1970.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 16th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 319.]

But since that reply was equally unsatisfactory, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is about time that he came up with proposals for improving industrial investment here and now, and not some time later, when the Government's dreamy hopes may have come to a successful conclusion? What is he doing about industrial investment here and now?

Certainly not indulging in dreamy hopes. The arrangements which the Government have produced are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, part of a general plan of action. One of the major problems lies, of course, in the question of liquidity, where the proposals of the Government in relation to corporation tax should have a real effect.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that with the present rates of wage costs and inflation it is inevitable that the margins for future investment should be further eroded, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned about levels of investment, should they not direct some of their concern to their paymasters in the trade union movement?

I certainly concur that the current wage inflation is undoubtedly having a very deterring effect on the prospects for investment and that any relief of that would have a signally advantageous effect on the whole outlook.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action he will be taking to control steel prices.

The British Steel Corporation has made no proposal for a further increase in prices.

But, with respect, that does not answer the question. What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy going to be if monopolies take advantage of their position to raise prices? It is useless to refer this to the Monopolies Commission, because we cannot wait three years for a report. What action will he take if any monopoly raises its prices unjustifiably?

In regard to the British Steel Corporation, to which the original Question related, I exercise a careful scrutiny of all proposals that the corporation—or any other nationalised industry under my charge—makes for price increases. The answer to the question, of course, is that at the moment there is no such proposal from the British Steel Corporation, so I have no particular standing in this issue.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is now trying to keep steel prices down, as the Prime Minister said before the election, or pushing them up, as he himself indicated to the Foreign Policy Association a week ago?

I am certainly not seeking to push up steel prices.