asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with the Stock Exchange Council with respect to the proposals that its members be permitted to solicit funds from the general public by advertising, and the necessary safeguards that will need to be instituted.

I have no statutory responsibility for the rules of the Stock Exchange, London.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House an assurance that discussions will be held with the Stock Exchange Council before member firms are able to solicit funds from the public—however unsophisticated it may be—for speculative investments? Will he at least ensure that three safeguards are met—supervision of advertising, supervision of brokers' solvency margins and publication of brokers' accounts?

I take note of those points. I am engaged in informal discussions with the Stock Exchange at the moment, but within statutory allowances I cannot take any control in these fields.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to implement the recommendations of the 1959 Board of Trade Departmental Committee on Hallmarking.

We are at present awaiting comments from interested parties on a consultative document setting out proposals for a new hallmarking law. I cannot, however, say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Does not the Minister think that twelve years is a very long time to wait for comments on a report of this kind? Is he aware of the great importance to the silversmithing and goldsmithing trades that compulsory hallmarking should continue, and also the importance to the buying public? Will it go on, or will it not? Can the Minister at least reaffirm the assurance given in the House on 28th January, 1970, that any reform of the law will be based on compulsory hallmarking of gold, silver and platinum ware?

The consultative document was issued only a few months ago. That document definitely suggests that there will be compulsory hallmarking. But it is important to get the details right, and that is what we are trying to do.

I have had considerable correspondence with the Department. One gets a little frustrated by letters saying that consultations are still going on. As far back as last June, July and September, and again in February of this year, it was said that consultations were still going on. When one gets in touch with the Assay Office one finds that it has made its returns. Is the delay in the Department?

I cannot accept responsibility for the 12 years referred to by the hon. Lady. I can only tell her that the document that we issued was issued only a few months ago. She will probably agree that it is important that the trade should agree the details of the new law. As far as I can see, there has been no undue delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about changes in the types of and construction of future nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

Together with the generating boards, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the nuclear design and construction companies, we are examining the choice of thermal nuclear reactors for further development in this country.

Does not the hon. Member agree that since there are difficulties about the type of nuclear power station that we should have in the future and since a good deal of cost in involved, there is a case for Parliament's being informed on this important issue? It is a very important matter for the future of our indigenous resources.

I shall be delighted to give the hon. Member any details that he requires. At the moment we are considering whether there should be another generation of nuclear reactor before the fast reactors are introduced in the next decade, but no decision has been taken whether there should be, or which one it should be. I cannot inform the hon. Member of things that have not yet been decided.

Can my hon. Friend say which nuclear technology it is proposed to use for the second phase of the Heysham station?

That is a matter for the C.E.G.B. It has not put forward definite proposals for using the second part of the site at Heysham. I cannot say what the proposals will be until they are received.

Following what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the decision when it comes, can the hon. Gentleman give the House more information about the attitude adopted towards the steam generating heavy water reactor against other systems—a question which is of importance not only for the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish boards but for our export orders in general?

I cannot tell the House that yet, because the steam generating heavy water reactor is in competition with two or three other types of reactor for a final decision on which to develop fully. Until that decision has been taken, I cannot say what it will be.

As the costs of nuclear power stations tend to be higher than has been expected, is there not a strong case, instead of scattering the stations throughout the country, for quantifying the cost advantage of going straight from phase 1 to phase 2 at Heysham, to obtain the full advantage of forward plans and the presence of an experienced construction team?

My hon. Friend has a Question on the paper about this. The amount of generating capacity which is needed at any one time is a matter entirely for the generating boards, and it is they who wish at the present time not to proceed with the second site at Heysham. Therefore, it is for them to decide, because they are responsible for settling the country's needs for electricity in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost benefit which would be secured by his authorising the construction of the second phase of the Heysham nuclear power station as an integrated project with the current phase as compared with authorising a similar project in another location.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for which sites the Central Electricity Generating Board holds planning permission for a nuclear power station where he has not authorised construction; for which sites in respect of which he has authorised construction, work has begun or tenders been invited; and for which sites for which he has authorised construction tenders have not yet been invited.

Subject to approval of its general programme of capital expenditure, it is the responsibility of the C.E.G.B. to decide whether to develop the whole or part of the capacity for which it has consent to use a particular site. The only nuclear site for which consent has been given where the C.E.G.B. is at present constructing the first stage of a two-stage station is Heysham. The only other site with consent for a nuclear station is Sizewell B, and the C.E.G.B. has deferred until next year its decision about placing the main plant contracts for this station.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but could he give an estimate of the benefits of running the two schemes together? If it is not possible for him to give an estimate at present of the possibilities of integrating the two, the second phase and the first, will he not accept that a contractor with plant on the site would be able to cut to the bone the cost of a further stage, and, in addition, will he accept that, because of the high level of unemployment in the Lancaster area, which has been building up since 1964, it is highly desirable to press the Central Electricity Generating Board to proceed on this site?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to press the C.E.G.B. better than I can. Much of what she seeks she should seek from the board. There is no point in building power stations unless there is a need for the electricity when the stations are completed. That is the doubt in the board's mind.

While obviously we do not want to exceed the demand for power, does my hon. Friend agree that on both environmental grounds and for the maintenance of safety precautions it is preferable to make full use of a site which the Nuclear Safety Committee has approved and for which planning permission has been given before starting new construction on a further site elsewhere?

While the Government have given approval to two stations on the site, they have little further influence over the matter. The House will agree that we should give the C.E.G.B. managerial freedom to decide which stations to develop there within consents given by the various Departments concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now make representations to the British Insurance Association concerning its refusal to accept responsibility for debts of the Vehicle & General Insurance Group, other than those arising out of passenger liability.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on 10th March. My discussions continue.—[Vol. 813, c. 138–9.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread hardship caused by the collapse of Vehicle & General and the equally widespread feeling that, the British Insurance Association having clothed V. & G. with its apparent stability, something should be done about this very soon?

I am very conscious of the widespread concern about this. I am pressing forward with discussions with the B.I.A. and I shall certainly report on this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that although there would not appear to be any legal liability on the part of B.I.A., the way in which that organisation represented the creditworthiness of its members may, if not honoured, bring considerable damage to the insurance world?

Yes, I am aware of that, and I think B.I.A. is, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the rate at which new industry is being attracted to Newton Aycliffe; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Employment on the estate has almost doubled during the past 10 years. We are continuing to bring the facilities available at Aycliffe to the notice of firms seeking additional factory space.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that employment on the estate has been static for almost two years? As the entire social and amenity development of Newton Aycliffe depends on future progress on the industrial estate, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that further stimulus is needed, since Newton Aycliffe is the only Northern Region new town which has not special development area status?

As to the unemployment, I should point out that the unemployment figures are exactly in line with the Great Britain average. On the question about the new town corporation, I shall be glad to consider, if the hon. Gentleman likes to get in touch with me, any possibilities in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce the need for the carriage of duty-free spirits on board aircraft on international flights to and from airports in the United Kingdom.

None, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of the particular point he has in mind I will look into it.

While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether, before we meet to discuss this, he will represent to Her Majesty's Government's Customs that it is undesirable from the safety and workload point of view that aircraft should become flying off-licences? Since I am told reliably that it is possible for a jumbo jet to take off for New York carrying 1,800 bottles of whisky in the cabin, would it not be more desirable if they had duty-free vouchers instead?

I understand that this practice is not popular with the corporations and other operators, and I will certainly, as I undertook, discuss with my hon. Friend and with operators ways in which we can get round this difficulty. But I should like to correct the view that this is a hazard to safety. Our Directorate of Flight Safety experience has not revealed any hazards from a safety point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the next Ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on 10th November. My right hon. Friend will, however, be attending a further E.F.T.A. ministerial meeting later this week.—[Vol. 806, c. 116.]

In view of General de Gaulle's disclosures in the Soames affair, and as the Prime Minister is about to visit General de Gaulle's successor, would not this meeting of E.F.T.A. be an appropriate moment to widen discussions and to talk about a conference of E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. on a wider free trade area?

The principal item at this forthcoming meeting of E.F.T.A., as on the last occasion, will be the whole of the negotiations going on between individual countries and the Community. This matter will certainly be under very close discussion. However, I think it is difficult to widen it in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, pending a clearer decision on the negotiations.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not treating this proposed meeting lightly, on the assumption that we are going into the Common Market? The right hon. Gentleman must agree, surely, that there is overwhelming opposition in this country to going into the Common Market. Therefore, to treat such a matter lightly would be fatal to the interests of this country.

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that no Ministerial meeting of E.F.T.A. is treated lightly. In particular, this one, which will be the first held at Reykjavik, will be treated with due gravity by my right hon. Friend.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is incorrect to say that there is overwhelming opposition in this country to entry into the Common Market?

Yes, that is certainly my view.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement on the negotiations with Lockheed over the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the RB211 contract.

With permission, I will make a statement after Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, following recent discussions with the Lockheed Corporation, it remains his assessment that the RB211 engine will be to a large extent behind engines of equivalent power and performance; and if he will make a statement.

Assuming that the RB211 goes ahead, which I hope will be the case, it is nevertheless bound to come into service later than its competitors. I have, however, no doubt that it is potentially a very good engine indeed.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bear in mind that as recently as 8th February he produced in the House a pretty powerful condemnation of the commercial case for the engine, in the light of which taxpayers will need a very clear assurance that this is the most sensible form of public works programme, if we are to go ahead with it, for the employment of the 40,000 people involved?

A large number of considerations come into the question. As I have said earlier, and have repeated often enough, I believe the RB211 to be a very good engine. There is no doubt, however, that market potential in the aerospace world is particularly difficult to assess at present.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pretty disgraceful when an hon. Member attacks a product of British industry like the RB211 engine as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has done? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that must make the negotiations with Lockheed even more difficult at a very touchy time?

I do not think that that question has any bearing on the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Concorde.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and I met M. Chamant on 22nd April. We were not able to make the thorough review we had originally intended because not all the information was available. We were, however, encouraged by the satisfactory nature of the flight test result to date.

In view of the further massive escalation in costs, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cancellation at this stage could very well mean, including the further production costs authorised, costs exceeding £1,000 million jointly between ourselves and the French? In view of the Government's declaration about a more open style of government, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving to the House costs of cancellation compared with costs of continuing the project and the likely price obtainable in the narrow range of the likely number of sales? If the right hon. Gentleman does not give those figures, the House must assume that there will be even further escalation.

These discussions with the French try to cover forecasts the whole time. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned about the rising costs of Concorde, but the truth is that at this stage it would indeed be very unwise to do other than proceed with this project, which we are doing.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that for the second or third time running he would be well advised to tell some of the ignorant critics that most of the information for which they ask is published, and has been published particularly in the last three weeks, in Flight magazine, and that if they read it and assimilated it they would not ask such stupid questions?

I will not associate myself with every one of those expressions, but a lot of information is available.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the House is entitled to hear authoritative figures and not to rely entirely on what it reads in magazines, which are not always accurate.

It was with a view to giving the House authoritative figures that I said what I did. At December, 1970, values, the increase is £60 million over the last estimate, which was £825 million, making the figure £885 million now, as I said. I think that that was the question which the right hon. Gentleman wished to have answered.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Nattrass v. Tesco Supermarkets in view of its effect on the protection afforded by the Trade Descriptions Act.

None, Sir. In my view, the protection afforded by the Act has not been significantly affected by this decision.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that at the time of the passage of the Bill no one envisaged for a moment that it would be possible for a large concern like this to escape simply by blaming one of its managers for the defect? Will he look again at the possibility of amending legislation?

The Act expressly provides that, where the commission by any person of an offence is due to the act or default of another person, the first person is to be acquitted if he also satisfies the court that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

Is not one of the problems in a case like this the question where the burden of proof lies, and does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave concern in the public mind about this, that people do not agree with his view, and that they feel that their safeguards have been eroded?

It is a perfectly natural rule of justice that people should not be subject to criminal charges unless one has some reason for believing that they have committed an offence. It is not enough, therefore, just to prosecute a company without making sure who it is within the company who has been responsible for committing the offence.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise where his argument takes him in logic if he abandons the principle of vicarious liability for offences such as this? If we apply his principle to the Factories Act and other social legislation, for example, and say that the target for a prosecution when an offence is committed shall be the man actually at the point of the offence, the main culprits in such a situation may escape altogether. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a serious constitutional issue here which, in my opinion, he seems to be taking far too lightly?

No, Sir. It has always been true that, if the person accused of the commission of an offence can prove that it was clue to the act or default of another and that he has taken all reasonable precautions to make sure that that other person had proper instructions, he should be acquitted. That seems to me to be a fundamental principle of law which the hon. Gentleman would do wrong to question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will arrange for the two main runways at London Airport (Heathrow) to be used on alternate dates for take-off and landing, and for this procedure to be publicised in order that the public may have some relief from noise.

Whenever possible, landings are already equalised between the two main runways. I shall consider how far landings might be alternated between the runways, though any such arrangement would be liable to frequent interruption by unpredictable contingencies.

I thank my hon. Friend for going as far as he has, but may I press him further on this matter, since it would be of great help to people in London if they could know when there would be some relief from this intolerable noise?

I appreciate that, and it is one of the reasons why I said that we shall consider the matter further. I should point out that it would make little difference at distances greater than about seven miles from the airport.

I have referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner a case suggesting that the hon. Gentleman's Department is not doing all it could in this matter. If the Parliamentary Commissioner makes recommendations to his Departments that it should alter its procedures so as to give some relief from noise, will the hon. Gentleman take that very seriously?

We had better wait to see what the Parliamentary Commissioner says.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community, British industry will have the opportunity to discuss with parallel organisations in the Community the social problems of industrial development within the European Community.

Any organisation representing British industry is free now to discuss these matters with its opposite number in Europe.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware of the considerable disquiet in the regions, and certainly in Lancashire, because it is felt that the main benefits of membership of the Common Market will go to the "golden triangle" of London-Paris-Bonn and the regions will suffer neglect as a result? Could my hon. Friend give the country, and especially the regions, some assurance in this respect and say that organisations such as the C.B.I., the industrial development associations and so on will be able to consult with a view to improving matters in some of the older areas?

The Community countries are well aware of these matters and are particularly conscious of regional problems. There is nothing to stop regional policy. Both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. have close contacts with their opposite numbers in Europe, and these will, no doubt, continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has to show that the tariff advantages British industry enjoys in the Commonwealth are being eroded independently of any changes that might be attributed to our joining the European Economic Community.

Reductions in tariff preferences resulting from multilateral tariff negotiations, increases in protective rates and other changes in national tariffs.

Is it not true that, as Commonwealth countries have established their own manufacturing industries, they have progressively tended to protect them and that, because of the advantages which we have enjoyed in those countries in the past, this is a process which has been and is likely to be particularly prejudicial to ourselves?

There are certain Commonwealth countries which have sought to protect infant industries in that way, but there may still be margins of preference in our favour. The same has happened in South Africa, which is not a member of the Commonwealth but is a member of the sterling area.

Has not the mutually beneficial adjustment of the Ottowa preferences, which are long out of date, been frustrated by the working of the G.A.T.T. ban on new and increased preferences, and, with all the confusion in the Community and so on, is not the time coming for all these matters to be considered afresh?

Yes, Sir, I have no doubt that it will be necessary to think carefully once again in relation to both these items and certain others when we see more clearly the progress of the negotiations in Brussels.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate has been made of the effects of the new regional policies on the levels of unemployment; and how soon he expects the full results of those policies to be effective.

No system of regional incentives could yield measure-able results in the space of six months. Progress will depend on the co-operation of all in creating conditions for sound national economic growth.

That answer means absolutely nothing. Does the hon. Gentleman regard the present figures as appalling, and, if he does, what adjective will he apply to the figures for the coming winter? Second, when will the Government accept complete responsibility for the appalling mess into which we have now got ourselves?

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to use an adjective, it would be very similar to that which I used about the high unemployment under his Administration. The present Government will take responsibility for what happens next winter. What they do not take responsibility for is what happened during the six years of the Labour Government.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sole result of the so-called regional policies pursued by the Labour Government in Scotland was that, notwithstanding hundreds of millions of pounds poured in, more than 80,000 jobs wore lost?

I entirely agree.

Part of the Government's case is that they have had a thorough-going review of regional policies. If they want to maintain this pretence, why are they being so timid in not publishing a White Paper setting out all the facts, the nature of the review, the cost-effectiveness of investment grants, and so on? The House is entitled to this information.

The Government published a White Paper last November on one aspect of regional incentives. The other matters have been fully debated in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has now received in connection with his decision not to continue payments of regional employment premium after 1974; and what replies he has sent.

I can trace only one letter, to which I replied that R.E.P. was expensive, wasteful, and had not lived up to the claims made for it when it was introduced.

Is it still the Government's intention to spend the money saved by the abolition of R.E.P. on improving the infrastructure in the development areas? Will the Government in due course identify those projects which are going ahead as a direct result of the abolition of R.E.P.?

No, Sir. It is certainly the purpose to stop wasteful expenditure in due course, and it will obviously be much more sensible to apply the money saved to improving the infrastructure. As to how the amount works out, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is not a great incentive to existing industry in development areas to expand once R.E.P. is abolished? Surely the Government have something in mind for replacing R.E.P. for the development areas?

I will not speculate on policy decisions that may be taken between now and 1974. There are already substantial incentives to existing firms in the development areas.

Can my hon. Friend tell me how we are using the Local Employment Acts to stimulate tourism on the North-East Coast? I shall have a great deal to say on the problem of shipping when the relevant Bill is introduced. Is my hon. Friend aware that we want a more active policy for our area, as we have a great deal to offer on the North-East Coast and we should like to have the opportunity of offering it?

There is nothing to stop the North-East Coast offering it now. The Local Employment Acts are concerned with employment and not directly with tourism. We have had an exchange of correspondence on this and exchanges in the House. I repeat the offer that I have made to my hon. Friend to discuss the problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement of his plans for hiving off profitable sections of the publicly-owned industries.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take careful note of the decision by the Labour Party National Executive in favour of the next Labour Government's taking back the hived-off sections without compensation? As this advance warn-has been given, will not investors have only themselves to blame if they burn their fingers?

That seems to me to be a hypothetical decision. In deciding any adjustments in the boundaries of the nationalised industries, we must take a very full account of the industrial efficiencies of the concerns involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he now proposes taking to help arrest the rise in Scottish unemployment.

The hon. Member will recognise that major new initiatives have already been taken to put the economy on a sound footing and to promote industrial development in Scotland. Clearly changes of this magnitude should be given time to work, but we keep the situation under continuous review.

We all realise that it is extremely difficult to deliver that answer with a straight face. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the number of very reputable individuals and organisations in Scotland advocating a massive public works programme to reduce unemployment this year? Has the hon. Gentleman's Department been involved in any study of the possibility of undertaking such a programme?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has urged local authorities to do just that. He will be having further discussions with various people on this point in the near future.

Will my hon. Friend take careful note of the grave damage done to the Scottish economy by the penal taxation by the last Government, of family companies based in Scotland, and encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to rectify this as soon as possible?

Once again I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says and find myself in substantial agreement.

What representations has the hon. Gentleman had from the Scottish C.B.I. and the Scottish Council on the efficacy or otherwise of the Government's new policies?

The Director-General of the C.B.I. has indicated that he is entirely in favour of the policy the Government are adopting.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made on conversion of consumers' appliances to natural gas.

The programme is on target. Nearly 10 million appliances belonging to more than 3¾ million consumers have so far been converted.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he fully aware of the sheer immensity of the operation, in that there are well over 30 million appliances to be converted? Is he satisfied that the conversion is proceeding with a minimum of inconvenience to consumers?

I am aware of the immensity of the programme. It was always scheduled to take 10 years, up till the end of 1978, but we now hope that by 1975 most consumers will be converted. I believe that the number of complaints from consumers has on the whole been dropping, which is a tribute to the gas boards carrying out the conversion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the British Overseas Airways Corporation's proposals to form a charter subsidiary.

B.O.A.C. propose to use a subsidiary company in order to enable them to compete in that part of the charter market not open to I.A.T.A. airlines. We are satisfied that they should be enabled to do so.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is not he aware that the cherished darling of the Tory Party, Caledonian-B.U.A., already has a significant advantage in charter capacity which will be further enshrined in the Civil Aviation Bill? What is he prepared to do to ensure that B.O.A.C. gets its fair share of the market?

I do not propose to debate the Civil Aviation Bill with the hon. Gentleman at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman's Question asked about the subsidiary. It is designed primarily to enable B.O.A.C. to compete with international overseas competitors.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in order to establish the size of the air-miss problem, he will arrange that during a trial period no disciplinary action should be taken against reporting air misses regardless of blame attributed.

No, Sir. The present air-miss reporting and investigation procedure works effectively. There is no evidence that the possibility of disciplinary action deters pilots from reporting air misses.

It is my information from traffic controllers that it deters them from making such reports. There have been alarming incidents and a lot of alarmist speculation. Would not my hon. Friend agree that nothing but good could come out of an arrangement whereby controllers or pilots could report, knowing that they would not be subject to disciplinary action, to somebody who could then tell us whether there is anything in this alarming speculation?

I recognise my hon. Friend's considerable knowledge and experience of this matter, but the views which he has expressed are not entirely shared by all pilots. However, I will consider further with the pilots' organisations and the airline operators—with whom disciplinary action, if any, lies—what can be done further in this respect.

What was the reported number of air misses in United Kingdom air space last year and what does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the true figure should be?

I cannot give exact figures because it was only agreed last year that information about the number of reported air misses and the number of aircraft involved should be published. The survey for 1970 is expected to be published in September, 1971.

This is, of course, as we all understand, a voluntary reporting system, but since pilots, co-pilots, crew members, air traffic controllers and some passengers must know when an air miss takes place, it is hard to keep it secret. Can the hon. Gentleman reveal what disciplinary acts have been taken against pilots or controllers in recent months?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now in a position to make an announcement on the future size and structure of the British Steel Corporation.

I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 27th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 247–58].

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if we ever join the E.E.C., its present members will require us to abolish the Consumer Council's power to make representations about price increases by monopolistic corporations? Will he ensure that the Six are asked whether they would allow the Council to retain that power?

This is a matter on which we should want to have discussions with the Six in the light of any result of the negotiations in Brussels.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967; and whether he will make a statement.

The hon. Member will be aware that we did not support this Measure; however I have no current proposals to amend it.

Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Part IV of the Act imposes on the Corporation the need to maintain financial viability, taking one year with another. Does not he now think, in view of his recent refusal to grant in full the application by the Corporation for a price increase against the background of an inherited and accumulating deficit, that he should amend the Act?

No, Sir. I propose first and foremost to see the results of the first phase of my review. It is not yet completed but will be shortly. In the light of that, I shall have to make firm decisions about the future.

I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will announce the first phase of his review in a week or two. Will he include consideration of the other half of the 14 per cent. increase for which the Corporation originally asked? We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intimation that he understands that he must carry out the provisions of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967. Will he reiterate the commitment which the Government have already made under the Coal Industry Bill—which he has introduced—that any proposal for hiving-off any part of the steel industry would first have to be submitted to the House of Commons?

The second part of the 14 per cent. price increase asked for by the Corporation will be looked at in the first phase of the review. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I shall not do anything that I am statutorily forbidden to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish figures showing the exports to Czechoslovakia from the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy in 1965 and 1970, respectively, from information available from international sources.

The information is published by the O.E.C.D. in "Statistics of Foreign Trade, Series A", which is available in the Library. The figures show that exports from the United Kingdom have increased more slowly than from France, Germany and Italy.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this gives the lie to allegations that the Community is an inward-looking organisation? Does it not suggest that the existence of the Community helps to promote trade with Eastern Europe and that, inside the Community, Britain would find further opportunities for trading with Eastern Europe?

That is one conclusion that can be drawn from the figures. I am certain that there is nothing in the Community which would inhibit Britain from trading further with Eastern Europe.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of the exports of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy were of subsidised agricultural products?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for advice he has received from private companies who, in view of the Government's policy of controlling inflation, want to know whether they should increase their prices to the consumer because of increased operating costs; and what replies he has sent.

There have been only a few informal requests. The firms concerned have been advised in the terms of the reply, which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 14th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 106.]

Does not this lack of requests by private firms, in co-operation with Government policy, show that they are unconcerned about controlling inflation, simply passing on price increases to the consumer without regard to the effect on the cost of living? Does it not also show that these firms are not concerned to absorb their cost increases by increased efficiency of operation?

Considering that last year the average level of wages rose by 14 per cent. while the average level of prices rose by 8 per cent., the facts speak directly contrary to the hon. Gentleman's allegation. Competition has had the effect of moderating price increases far more than they would otherwise have been.

Do the Government intend to do anything about prices other than leave them to competition?

What is more, we intend to reinforce competition where it is lacking by working through the Monopolies Commission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, competition has always been the best way to control prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of increasing price rises, he will now consider fresh measures in order to reduce them; and if he will expedite their introduction.

Increasing price rises are the inevitable consequence of inflationary wage rises. It would therefore be more appropriate for the hon. Member to concentrate his energies upon ways of reducing inflationary pay settlements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does him no credit to keep on uttering propositions which are universally known to be fallacious? The part which wage inflation plays in prices can easily be measured and it is generally known to be a minority part. Will he get down to answering the Question? Are not the Government personally, individually and totally responsible for most of the price increases?

I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will ever learn anything. If the nation pays itself 14 per cent. more in total, does he expect that that will not go through in prices? Is he further aware that, in the first eight months of this Government, the rise in prices was the same as in the last eight months of the last Administration?

The hon. Gentleman said that he was reinforcing competition by using the Monopolies Commission. In what way? There has been only one reference of a monopoly so far in the ten months of this Government's life. What are the Government's decisions about competition policy, if they have come to any, and what specific proposals, if any, have been submitted to the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and can be submitted to the House?

Discussions have been taking place about the reform of the Monopolies Commission. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people think that increases in prices and, indeed, increases in wages are the product of the rapidly inflated money supply from which this country has been suffering? Inasmuch as this has been contributed to by a substantial inflow of overseas funds, will my hon. Friend recommend to the Government that we should follow the excellent example of Germany and float the currency?

I am not responsible for the conduct of monetary policy and questions to do with parity. I would point out to my hon. Friend that within any given total of money it is perfectly possible for a redistribution of income to take place from one section of the community to another, and that is what is happening.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that he has absolutely no proof of his contention that the rise in unemployment is due to the increase in wage costs? Is not this the most fallacious argument? Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Government have discovered one truth—that if a lie is repeated often enough, it will eventually get across to some people who will believe that lie in the same way that some people believed Nazi propaganda?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is perfectly possible for any firm or industry to price itself out of its market and thereby increase unemployment. Indeed, that is one of the factors now at work.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Scotland.

On 14th May.

When he comes, will he visit some extremely anxious Rolls-Royce sub-contractors who are bothered about how they are to get paid, not least in the light of an answer given by Lord Carrington in the House of Lords in reply to a Question on this subject?

I fear that on this occasion I shall not have the opportunity to meet Rolls-Royce sub-contractors—I already have a full day—but certainly this is a matter about which I am closely in touch.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the powers which weights and measures departments of local authorities have to investigate complaints concerning gold and silver articles, since the coming into force of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Section 28 of the Act confers powers of entry, inspection and seizure for ascertaining, whether offences against the Act—including false indications of testing, approval, composition and date of manufacture—have been committed.

As the assay offices now do all the merchandise marking and consumer protection in the gold and silver trades for local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that under the new legislation they will continue to safeguard the consumers?

Who will be enforcing the new hallmarking legislation has not yet been finally decided, but we shall certainly bear the hon. Lady's comments in mind before reaching a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has considered the resolution of the Corby and District Chamber of Commerce, a copy of which has been sent to him, on delays involved in obtaining industrial development certificates for factories outside the development and intermediate areas; and what plans he has for expediting the consideration of applications for such industrial development certificates.

I am not aware of any undue delay in dealing with applications for these certificates, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind perhaps he would write to me.

We have written repeatedly. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the Governments of both par- ties there has been delay in granting I.D.C.s to new towns like Corby? Is he further aware that a substantial firm which was granted permission two years ago had had to wait for so long that it reluctantly decided to go elsewhere?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to me any specific cases, I will certainly look into them. The last thing we want is delay in meeting these applications. My only comment is that applications in respect of assisted areas are generally answered almost by return of post, although those for other areas require a good deal of investigation. Firms often ask for a review, and that takes time. However, I will do everything I can to speed up the delivery.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in his informal consultations with the coal industry, he will raise the question of lowering the price of domestic coal in relation to the overall fuel pricing policy of the National Coal Board.

These consultations are confidential but I shall bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is too great a disparity between domestic coal prices and prices charged to industrial consumers? As price inflation is bearing most harshly on people in the lower income groups, will he take up this matter with the National Coal Board with a view to getting domestic fuel prices lower than they are?

We are discussing this matter with the Coal Board. However, there is some doubt whether domestic prices are subsidising industrial coal prices and I should not like to confirm or deny that statement until we have been able to go into the matter more closely.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that only a fortnight ago there was a Prices and Incomes Board Report specifically about coal prices and coal miners' wages which supported my hon. Friend's view that domestic coal prices are largely subsidising industrial undertakings?

I know that it sounds a terrible thing to do, but I reserve the right to disagree with the National Board for Prices and Incomes, if necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the quantity of steel scrap exported in the first quarter of 1971 and the proportion of these exports which went to the Common Market countries.

60,500 tons of ferrous scrap; and 47 per cent. respectively.

That answer will be of great interest, but in the steel-making areas there is even greater interest in future scrap trading arrangements? Will the Minister not approve of any change in the arrangements for governing scrap trading, particularly where such a change would be disadvantageous to the British steel industry? Will he also ensure that no change in the arrangements is made which confers on the steel industries of the Common Market countries an advantage against our own?

We have been importing almost twice as much as we have exported in the period in question. The present arrangements are that there is an open general licence for nearly all grades of scrap and we believe that that is the right state and we have no intion of changing that state of control at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information and proposals he has received from the Brewers' Society about widening the choice available to the public in places where a large proportion of the licensed premises is owned by the same brewer.

The Brewers' Society have sent me a copy of a factual report on local concentration of ownership of licensed premises, and I am studying this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the subject of freeing tied houses has been under consideration for more than a year, and that the Government have not made any effort to carry into effect the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that the system of the tied house should be ended? Is he further aware that it looks as though there is some unholy conspiracy between the Government and the brewers to bog down the whole subject of the tied house until the general report on the licensing laws is received? When will the Government take action to implement the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Government have set up a committee to inquire into the form of the licensing laws. The Government have noted with approval the voluntary undertaking by the brewers, which is not called for in the Monopolies Commission Report, about the sale of non-beer products. We are actively studying the subject of the local monopolies of pubs. If that is not taking action after the six years of inactivity by our predecessors, I do not know what is.

Is it not a fact that the Monopolies Commission made no recommendation except that about changing the licensing laws, and is not a review to that end now being conducted by the Erroll Committee?

That is quite true. The only recommendation of the Commission was that the licensing laws should be changed, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary immediately set that inquiry in train.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when he received the report from the Brewers Society about concentration in particular areas and when he expects to come to a decision about it?

We have only just received it, and I should like to study it before being able to say when we shall come to a conclusion.

Is it not a fact that some brewers with monopolies in some areas have already begun to swap pubs with other brewers so that there will no longer be monopolies in those areas?

I have heard of informal proposals of that sort, but I do not think that any such steps have yet been taken.

On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of all the replies, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he can now enumerate those constituent parts of Rolls-Royce Limited which it is not intended shall become part of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited; and which of them have been offered for purchase.

I cannot give full details but the main elements not being taken over by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. are the Motor Car and Oil Engine divisions and a number of share holdings in subsidiary and associated companies. Disposal of the parts of Rolls-Royce Ltd. not to be taken over by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. is a matter for the Receiver.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is 11½ weeks ago that the Government allowed the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce and that it is some weeks since the Receiver ceased effective management of the aero-division? When can we expect a statement about the disposal of these assets? In particular, can the Minister be more specific about the future of the composite fibre division and the Derby engine division?

It may be 11½ weeks since Rolls-Royce went into liquidation on its own account, but the plain fact is that the Receiver is maintaining the management of these companies as it is his duty and interest to do to make them as attractive as possible to potential purchasers. I cannot add anything further to what has already been said with regard to the others matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Government to hive off part of Rolls-Royce at this time will involve a number of major managerial decisions and disentangling at the very moment when it moves into new ownership? Will he not think again about this, at any rate until we have seen how Rolls-Royce settles down under the 1971 company?

I am hoping that the 1971 Rolls-Royce will settle down very quickly indeed and I do not propose to postpone the other decisions for any length of time.