asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet representatives of the Electricity Council and trade union representatives in the electricity supply industry.

I have no such plans at present.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should try to make some plans because he is surely aware that, despite the efforts of trade unions, there could well be a ban on overtime in the electricity industry tomorrow. Against this background, in view of the effect which that will have, plus the bitterness that the men within the industry feel over the present wage negotiations, surely it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to become involved in this dispute as quickly as possible in the hope that a satisfactory settlement can be arrived at.

I understand that the parties are meeting today. I think it is much better to leave the matter in their capable hands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there are to be cuts this week, particularly in the Sheffield area where there are steelworks, it is most important that the steelworks should be notified of all likely cuts as it would be very costly and inconvenient if steel were to grow cold and solid in, for instance, electric arc furnaces?

Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that the electricity supply industry has the problems of industries of that kind generally very much in mind and will do all that it possibly can to mitigate any difficulty which might arise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate just how serious is the public electricity supply system at this moment? It is balanced on a knife-edge. Does he not think that the Government bear some responsibility for the situation by their foolhardy policy of discrimination against the nationalised industries in the matter of pay setlements?

No, I do not agree with that remark at all. The Government keep the matter under very careful consideration and attention to ensure that the maximum is done to limit any damage which may occur.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is—that under the Act the electricity supply industry has a special obligation to serve the public and not to take extreme action? Will he make it clear to all the parties concerned that they ought not to take action which will cause disruption of supplies to the general public?

Yes. I am sure that all the parties will be aware of what my hon. Friend has said. It is true that the electricity supply industry has not only a moral but a statutory commitment in this respect.

In view of the gravity of the crisis, to which reference has been made, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government cannot stand aside from this matter, particularly as they are known to be a major factor in the background of all the negotiations? Will the Minister tell the House whether the response which he has given today is merely in reference to the present situation or whether he intends to maintain it if the dispute develops?

The Government are keeping the whole issue under careful and continuous attention and will take any action which they deem necessary in the light of any development.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation with a view to setting up an early warning system for any ship carrying hazardous cargoes through the English Channel.

I do not think this would be the right approach. However, as was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 24th January, the United Kingdom is proposing urgently to the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation a system of reporting incidents to ships involving the loss or possible loss of hazardous cargoes immediately such losses are known.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the announcement which he has made and that made by his right hon. Friend earlier of a belated reference to I.M.C.O., a belated reference which he himself turned down when I suggested it nine months ago? Does he recognise that it is not just a question of an early warning system of ships which sink but that it is extremely important that the Governments of the maritime Powers along the English Channel should know what is going up in the context of dangerous cargoes, and that this was a specific recommendation of the Select Committee which reported in 1968?

I accept that. I do not accept that I turned down the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I have my answer to the hon. Gentleman on the file. The practicalities of the situation are quite simply that there are many thousands of movements per day through the English Channel, a very tiny percentage of which cause these problems. The chance of getting international agreement on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is therefore practically nil. I think that this which I have suggested as being practical and sensible is the best thing to do at the moment.

Concerning hazardous cargoes and the danger of the very large super oil tankers coming through the Channel, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, to reconsider extending the pilotage areas so that United Kingdom pilots can go on board these ships entering the Channel much earlier, and secondly, what progress is being made on getting rid of dangerous wrecks in the English Channel?

The right hon. Gentleman will agree that those are two rather separate questions, but they are important. The question in regard to pilots in particular would require international agreement and this is being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of the fact that the level of unemployment in Bolton is now above the average for the North-West Region as a whole, he will grant intermediate area status to the town.

Assisted area boundaries are kept under continuing review, but I have no statement to make at present.

My right hon. Friend knows that unemployment in Bolton has risen by 172 per cent. in the last 12 months—the highest percentage increase of all travel-to-work areas in the North-West Region—and that our unemployment is now way above that existing in the intermediate areas. Yet we are denied all assistance under the Government's regional policy and we are actively discriminated against when seeking to stand on our own feet. This is not only arrant nonsense but is monstrously unjust. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the reply I have received, I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action he intends to take against persons and companies who indulge in the practice of pyramid selling.

In the case of one company a petition has been presented for its winding-up. I am also considering whether some more general action is needed to deal with the practice of pyramid selling.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these companies spring up like mushrooms, bleed thousands of unsuspecting people of their life savings by filling them up with stories of making £80,000 a week and then, when the going gets too hot, disappear like smoke? I have had many complaints about one of the companies which the hon. Gentleman's Department has investigated and decided not to prosecute. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that it is no good making investigations under the Companies Act in these cases? The right thing to do is to make this vile practice illegal.

Even if legislation were to be introduced it would take a very long time before it could become effective. In the meantime we have, I believe, investigated four companies and petitioned for the winding up of a fifth.

It is now many weeks since I sent the Minister a good deal of information about this practice. Has he yet made up his mind what he intends to do?

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), we are actively considering what would be the proper action, if any, to take. I should have said that we have investigated two companies and that a further two are about to be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to extend to intermediate areas the forms of financial assistance for approved tourist projects that at present apply only to development areas.

No, Sir. We judge it right to concentrate the limited funds available on the development areas where the need is greatest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present position can give rise to regional inconsistencies? Would he be prepared to review the situation of the South-West intermediate area and, in particular, the Tamar Valley, as we are of the opinion locally that the best way of alleviating unemployment there is by the development of tourism?

Yes; I entirely accept that any arrangements of this sort are apt to lead to regional inconsistencies. We will certainly keep the matter under review for the future.

Will my right hon. Friend think again about areas or towns where unemployment is massively above any regional or national level? I think of Exmouth, where the unemployment level is about 13 per cent. and which is entirely a tourist area. It is strange that in the West Country some areas without such employment problems can get aid whereas other areas with employment problems can get nothing.

Such an argument is fair, but administratively it would be very difficult to arrange in the way that would suit my hon. Friend and, indeed, myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visitors came to Great Britain on holiday in each of the years 1967 to 1971 inclusive.

Holiday visits to the United Kingdom numbered 2·1 million, 2·2 million, 2·6 million and 3·0 million in 1967 to 1970, respectively; there were 2·7 million visits in the first three quarters of 1971, an increase of 4 per cent. over the same period of 1970.

I welcome and recognise the dramatic increase that there has been in the number of overseas visitors to this country, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the liaison between his Department and other Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment, about the very real problems? At present too many people want to visit too few places on too few occasions. Does not my right hon. Friend think that as much money as is expended on encouraging people to come to this country should extol the virtues of bases outside the obvious meeting grounds of London, Stratford, Edinburgh Castle and Coventry Cathedral?

My hon. Friend has raised a point which most of us who live in places outside the immediate tourist areas are keen to develop. I would recommend to him a talk with the British Tourist Authority because that is the body responsible for spreading the advertising money, not only in this country but all over the world.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in the light of these clearly increasing figures the time is appropriate for the Government to end the hotel development scheme? Does he not think that we will face a crisis of lack of bedroom accommodation for these ever-increasing numbers of visitors?

All hon. Members who have studied this scheme will realise that it has been a much greater success than was originally thought when it was brought in by the previous Government. A large number of extra beds have been provided in the most desired areas—if "desired" is taken to mean those areas to which the tourists are going. At the moment, however, a considerable expansion is going on in the Highlands under the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people, in departments for which he is responsible, are working solely and exclusively on the development of tourism.

Including the tourist boards responsible to my right hon. Friend, 555.

I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is enough in view of the importance of the tourist industry to employment? Is he aware that 93,000 jobs are available in the tourist industry, which is now the largest dollar-earning industry in the country? Is he satisfied that his Department is giving sufficient priority to the part which tourism could play in the country's increasing prosperity?

I am exceedingly pleased to see the great success which the tourist industry has had, but I do not believe that that success is necessarily related to the number of civil servants who may be looking after it. Apart from those in the Department of Trade and Industry and the tourist boards, there are others in other Ministries who are directly concerned with tourism. Without making them complacent, I should like to congratulate them all on how well they are doing.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that some of those people could be usefully diverted to raising the level of industrial activity in North-East Bristol, where unemployment is now at record heights?

I am not certain whether people from the tourist boards would be very successful in that respect. They have their own job to do and they are doing it extremely well.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board to reopen closed workshops.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the National Coal Board.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that that is a most disappointing reply? Is he aware that in the Dearne Valley over the past few years several factories have closed? The Aldon Engineering Works, Priestley's clothing factory and the Manvers Main workshop are the latest. When will the Government stop closing factories in Dearne Valley? Is it not time the Government declared Dearne Valley a development district rather than an intermediate area?

The Question asks the Government to give

"a general direction to the National Coal Board to reopen closed workshops".

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions during the past 10 years the reports of inspectors from his Department appointed to investigate the affairs of individual companies under the terms of Section 165 of the Companies Act have been followed by legal prosecutions; and in how many of these instances the reports of the inspectors were withheld from publication.

Prosecutions resulted from inspectors' reports in 26 cases during the 10 years to 31st December, 1971. In nine of those cases it has been decided not to be in the public interest to publish the reports.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Nevertheless, does he agree that there is no post-war precedent for a company with such a very wide shareholding as Rolls-Royce being the object of such an inspection? In view of that, are there not exceptional reasons in this case which favour the publication of the inspectors' report?

I will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. The decision to publish in a particular case must be geared to the question whether publication could have a prejudicial effect on any subsequent trial proceedings.

Can the Secretary of State do something to expedite action against the many companies which continually and persistently break the law? Details of dozens of such companies are in his possession but the Under-Secretary refuses to carry out the law until such time as the investing public loses all its money. I could quote dozens of cases, but I see that the Under-Secretary is now giving the Secretary of State the information.

In the 26 cases to which the Question refers it has been decided in only nine cases not to publish, in the public interest.

Get cracking on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now refer to the Monopolies Commission the proposed mergers between Beecham's and Glaxo, and Boots and Glaxo, in view of the latest bids made.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with his Department following recent develop- ments in regard to the proposed merger between Glaxo Group Limited and Boots Limited and the take-over bid by Beecham's for Glaxo Group Limited.

After consideration of all the circumstances, I have decided to refer to the Monopolies Commission the proposed mergers between Beecham Group Ltd. and Glaxo Group Ltd. and between the Boots Company Ltd. and Glaxo Group Ltd.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in this case he has shown great good sense in adopting the suggestion I made to him three weeks ago?

I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for any suggestion he makes. I do not guarantee to follow it always.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his indecision in regard to this matter has created great uncertainty in the pharmaceutical industry? Is it not a matter for concern to his Department that when there was a blatant takeover bid by Beecham's he refused to refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission? Does he not understand that people consider that he is more concerned about his City interests than he is about those employed in this industry?

I should have thought that that was entirely inconsistent with the decision I have reached.

In my right hon. Friend's current review of monopoly policy will he consider whether it is necessary to retain the present powers over mergers? Might it not be better in the case of a proposed merger to say that if it would result in too great a monopoly situation he will exercise his powers to prevent it, in the public interest?

I will take that into consideration. There will continue to be cases where perhaps the anticipatory effect of a merger reference will have an advantage.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his lamentable failure to refer to the Monopolies Commission the blatant takeover bid by Beecham's was a dereliction of duty? Is he further aware that all members of Glaxo's staff and workers regard this as an insult to their endeavours on behalf of the nation? Will he give an assurance that he will not treat the Glaxo firm in such a cavalier manner in future?

No, I do not think I am aware of any of these points.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, including the shareholders, are very anxious about the consequences for employment and the prosperity of communities in a merger situation like this? Will he encourage companies making a bid to publish in their offer documents full details of the likely consequences for employment and plant location?

I will certainly bear that in mind. It is of interest in one of these cases that the Chairman of Beecham's gave such an assurance in making his proposals.

Is he your pal?

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is deep public disquiet about the criteria by which he refers these matters to the Monopolies Commission and that in many people's minds the only major difference—although the decision that he has taken now is the right one—between these two companies wishing to take over Glaxo is that, in the first case, Beecham's had contributed very heavily to the Conservative Party's funds and that Boots had not contributed at all? Was the earlier decision a case of payment for services rendered?

I consider that to be an impudent suggestion.

But is it true?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received for giving to companies within special development areas the same inducements to increase employment as are offered to companies considered to be incoming to those areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider applying operational grants to firms already in the areas of need who wish to expand.

A number of representations have been received and replies have been sent explaining the grounds for providing a margin of extra assistance to new incoming industry.

The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the Prime Minister, as far back as the debate on the Queen's Speech, undertook to look at this matter specially. Surely it is now time that he had some specific answers to whether or not the measures are to be applied to the established industries as well as the incoming industries. Does he recall that I have put a specific case to him and have had no reply except a mere statement of the rules, which I found very unsatisfactory?

My right hon. Friend undertook to look into any submissions which might be made on this subject, and several have been. The nature of those submissions is not such, at this stage at least, as to guide one towards a change in the rules which currently apply. The requirement to maintain a very real and contrasting advantage for incoming industry still represents an important element of regional policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West of Scotland we are fighting a desperate, losing battle to maintain the established industry and manpower and that if the operational grant were given to those established firms which wanted to extend a little good could be done in that direction? Incoming industries which compete with the established industries get an advantage over them which is quite unfair. The West of Scotland is fast becoming an industrial desert as a result of the inactivity of the present Government.

I am deeply concerned about the situation in West Central Scotland, as the hon. Member knows. I am certainly open to any proposals which seem to me to have a real contribution to make. On this one, I am afraid, I have not yet been persuaded that it would make any real contribution.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is the difference between Question No. 82 and the two Questions which the right hon. Gentleman has just answered?

That is not a matter for me.

On a point of order.

I would prefer points of order about Questions to come at the end of Question Time, because they all take up time.

Is it not a fact that the last Socialist Government always set their face against extending S.D.A. status except for colliery closures and that this is a procedure which could be transferred to other areas of West Central Scotland with great advantage?

Yes, I believe that the extension of S.D.A. status, notably in West Central Scotland, has been and will prove to be a great contribution to overcoming some of the great problems there.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will remain in his place until I have raised my point of order at the end of Questions, because I want him to hear it?

I would have called the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East (Mr. McCartney) to ask a supplementary question if he had wanted to. Does he want to?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am deeply dissatisfied with the way in which he answered the other two Questions which are directly related to Question No. 82? Is he not aware that a town development scheme, into which was introduced several new industries, is collapsing because this special measure which is being asked for is not being agreed to by himself and his Government? Is he not further aware that in the new town of Cumbernauld we are losing industries which were introduced into the area under the Labour Government?

Yes, but surely the hon. Member will realise that the expansion of such arrangements spreads still more thinly any efforts which one can make in these ways. I am sure he will realise of what enormous importance it is to the area in question to try to have the maximum of facilities and incentives available for incoming industry.

Now, if the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), wishes to ask a supplementary question, I will allow it.

I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "You ought to be."] I always am. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether, on a matter of principle relating to these Questions which are being discussed, he is aware that the Prime Minister told me only last Thursday that a decision would not be very long delayed? I am rather at a loss to understand why my right hon. Friend replied in the way he did to these Questions.

I hope that a decision on these matters will not be long delayed. It is, however, not ready yet, so I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has now assembled all the data and figures necessary to establish the final valuation for Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.

Both sides have now largely completed their preparatory work, and detailed negotiations are about to begin.

In view of that reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend and his colleague the Secretary of State will be prepared to make a definitive and detailed statement to the House in the near future about the final results?

As I have explained previously in the House this is a very complex business, and I should hesitate to name a date on which it will be possible to announce any final solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what parts of Rolls-Royce Limited have already been returned to private ownership; what parts he expects will be sold in 1972; and whether he will make a statement.

Disposal of the assets of Rolls-Royce Ltd. is a matter for the receiver and joint liquidators of that company. The Government-owned company, Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., bought from the receiver the greater part of Rolls-Royce Ltd's. gas turbine divisions. The remainder of the Rolls-Royce assets is being sold to private enterprise, including Rolls-Royce Motors which, I understand, the receiver intends to float publicly during 1972.

Do I take it from that reply that after the Rolls-Royce motor division has been sold, and if the carbon fibre division can be sold, the only part of the old Rolls-Royce company which will remain in public ownership later this year is the original aero-engine division?

Yes, Sir, subject to the qualification that I cannot control the timing of the receiver's activities.

What will be the position of shareholders in the former Rolls-Royce company if the receiver floats the motor-car division from the publicly-owned company?

It is the receiver's function to endeavour to dispose of the assets to the best possible advantage to the creditors and shareholders, but until all the assets are sold and the prices are agreed for the Rolls-Royce (1971) assets it will not be possible for him to indicate how much money is available.

Is not the present situation unsatisfactory for the creditors of the old Rolls-Royce company and for the shareholders, including the worker shareholders? Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the assets of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. in particular will be valued so that steps can be taken to pay sums to the creditors, many of whom are still in quite serious financial difficulties because of the collapse of Rolls-Royce?

I cannot go further than I have already except to remind the House, as I have done many time before, that this is a complex operation. All I can guarantee is that there will be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Government or Rolls-Royce.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now take steps to allow the same reliefs, concessions, and arrangements to be made for service industries setting up in the special development areas as are now available for manufacturing industries.

My hon. Friend will know that service industry investment in plant and machinery in development areas now qualifies for free depreciation and that Local Employment Act assistance can be made available to major service industry projects which bring substantial employment to assisted areas.

While I recognise that there are some distinctions as between service industries, manufacturing industries and other industries and that it is difficult to see why these distinctions should exist, surely the case for the development areas must be that their employment should be much more broadly based, and there does not appear to be a good reason for this rather selective approach. Will my hon. Friend agree to look at the matter again?

We have taken very large steps, including the halving of S.E.T., in reducing the discrimination against the service industries which the last Government brought in, and I think my hon. Friend can feel that sufficient progress has been made in the time so far available.

I recognise the force of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), but will not my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reflect that this Question and a number of Questions which other hon. Members have had on the Order Paper today tend to suggest that the whole gamut of special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas is more effective in encouraging jealousy and resentment in areas which do not enjoy these incentives than in encouraging satisfaction in those areas that do?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps he will discuss this important matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for encouraging publicly-owned investment in the North-East of England.

The North-East will benefit from the accelerated investment by nationalised industries and the Government's other extensive measures to stimulate output, investment and employment.

In view of the seeming unattractiveness of the North-East for private investment, ought there not to be a very much stepped-up programme to encourage public investment, especially in the manufacturing and other wealth-producing industries?

I, of course, of all people, would not agree about the unattractiveness of the North-East—

Hear, hear.

—and I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I thought the bulk of the problem was the reduction of employment provided by the publicly-owned industries at present as much as by the private sector.

Will the Minister bear in mind that public investment per head in Yorkshire and Humberside is about the lowest in the country, and as Yorkshire and the Humberside region have only two intermediate areas and no development areas at all the Government should do all they can at least to attract public investment to Yorkshire and Humberside?

The Government have done a great deal to increase public sector investment in both industry and infrastructure, and I feel sure my hon. Friend will agree that there has been a very large acceleration of a large number of projects, with considerable benefit to the areas concerned.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary does not need me to tell him that the North-East is one of the most attractive areas of our country, but does he realise that the problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) lies in the fact that private industry is not coming in as it did before 1970, because of the stopping of the investment grant? Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade his right hon. Friend to reconsider this action in view of the damaging effect it is having on regional policies?

I would not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I can say that there are encouraging signs of an upturn —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—in the economy generally which will benefit the hon. Gentleman's area as much as all the others.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date his Department first took action to call in the police to investigate the affairs of Mesco Laboratories Limited of Old Broad Street, the Stanley Weston Group, Renclore Limited, Mesco Consolidated Industries Finances Limited, Hestmore Limited, Mesco Properties Limited, and Corton Beach (Holdings) Limited; and with what results.

Inspectors were appointed under Section 165(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of Corton Beach Holdings Ltd., on 28th April, 1970, following the receipt of information from the Metropolitan and City Police, Company Fraud Department, and from other sources. The same inspectors were appointed to investigate Mesco Consolidated Industries Finance Ltd., on 8th September, 1970, and Renclore Ltd., on 30th June, 1971. A compulsory winding-up order was made in the High Court against Mesco Laboratories Ltd. on 15th December, 1970, and a similar order was made on 21st December against Mesco Properties Ltd.

I congratulate the Minister on taking action in these cases but is he not aware that, generally speaking, it takes years for his Department to take action when Members of Parliament, directors, auditors, accountants and solicitors ask him to take action? Will he look at yesterday's Observer, in which evidence is given that 200,000 out of 500,000 limited liability companies are consistently and persistently breaking the law and his Department is doing nothing at all about it? Will he not get cracking and get action going on this matter before these companies rob the investors of their money?

I am delighted to know that at last the hon. Gentleman has recognised the sterling achievements of the Companies Branch of my Department. There is, however, one litle difficulty to be overcome before taking a firm to court, which is that one must have a case which can be sustained in court. Some of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has put forward cannot be said to comply with that condition.

On the question of breach of the law in terms of returning accounts, I know that in most cases this is not a very serious offence but behind a great deal of mass negligence lies a good deal of deliberate fraud. Why cannot the Department make sure that this law is obeyed, as most of our laws are obeyed, by starting to prosecute people who fail to make returns in accordance with the Act?

The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is about a separate aspect of company law from that referred to in the Question but I can say that we prosecute in a large number of cases and that the sentence sometimes is inadequate to deter offenders. This is a problem which the Government are looking into.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply on the general issue, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now review the system of granting industrial development certificates.

The I.D.C. control is kept constantly under review.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept that in order to create jobs and encourage industrial investment it is urgently necessary to review I.D.C. policy; and that it is highly probable that this will be recommended by the C.B.I., especially in relation to small firms which, once an I.D.C. has lapsed, do not go to development areas but abandon any projects they may have, with the result that jobs are lost altogether? Will my right hon. Friend con- firm that although the last Government were particularly inflexible in this respect the present Government intend to be more sensible?

I have some recommendations from the C.B.I. which I am carefully considering. On the second point of the supplementary question, it is perhaps worth saying that in the West Midlands generally in the three years up to the end of last year less than 10 per cent. of all I.D.C. applications were refused. It is easy to get the matter out of proportion. This Government certainly operate the I.D.C. control system —which they realise involves great problems for many industries—with the utmost flexibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his Government came to power the whole country has become a development area? I do not know about the issue of I.D.C.s in the West Midlands but I know that unemployment there is rising towards 10 per cent., whereas until the present Government came to office the figure was about 2 per cent. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to see that this amazing situation in one of the richest industrial areas in the country is remedied and the area made able to stand where it was before?

I feel confident that the West Midlands will re-expand with the expansion of the economy. Meanwhile I am operating the I.D.C. control, to which the Question refers, with flexibility.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all these questions suggesting various measures for development areas, and so on, result from the inflexible attitude of the last Government, and particularly their failure to adopt the recommendation in the Hunt Report? Would not a negative I.D.C. policy be of great help to the grey areas?

Certainly the recommendations of the Hunt Report are also very much under consideration in my review of regional policy.

I am sure the House would agree with the Secretary of State that I.D.C. controls ought to be exercised carefully. Would the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that, to be effective. there has to be some sense of Government commitment to the idea of I.D.C.s? The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole policy was constantly under review. Would he at any rate reassure the House that he is not contemplating the ending of I.D.C. control, which has played a part in stimulating employment in the development areas?

I have made the Government's position on this very clear recently in emphasising that the I.D.C. control represents an essential and continuing part of regional policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will arrange to state on every statistical inquiry whether or not its completion is obligatory.

When inquiries are made under statutory powers, it is an invariable practice for forms to refer to the relevant legislation, usually the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. As to other inquiries I am considering whether this information could be given more clearly.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme urgency of this matter? The Census of Distribution for 1971 form, which is now being sent to all retail establishments with a turnover in excess of £200 per week—which is a fairly modest sum—asks for a tremendous amount of information, in particular the space immediately behind counters used by shop assistants. Much of the information requested seems to be totally irrelevant. The Bolton Report suggests that the completion of such forms is an unnecessary imposition on small businesses. Will my hon. Friend take action as soon as possible?

We are reviewing this particular recommendation of the Bolton Committee. Forms which are not statutorily required to be completed do not carry any suggestion that that is the case.

Regarding the completion of forms, would my hon. Friend consider raising the cut-off level for smaller concerns? Parliament has never wanted the promotion of statistics to be an imposition on small businesses. There are a number of examples where that is the case. An investigation into the level of cut-off would be very much appreciated by small businesses.

What we are doing, and have done with considerable success already, is to develop sampling techniques whereby a lot of information can be discovered by consulting only 10 per cent. of the persons concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to the proposal of the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council that Her Majesty's Government shall provide local authorities with moneys to compensate them for reductions in rates to be given to householders affected by aircraft noise out of the revenues of the British Airports Authority.

I have not yet received any such proposal from the council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a proposal of this sort and several other proposals are in the post addressed to him? I should have thought he would have received them by today but certainly he should receive them tomorrow. When he receives them, will he give them careful consideration? Will he consider not only this proposal but the series of proposals which will be contained in the document he will be receiving?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole problem of aircraft noise occupies a great deal of my thought and time. I will do anything I can to try to help.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider a scheme by which the noisiest types of aircraft, when taking off and landing, would pay higher charges than quieter aircraft and that the proceeds of these charges on the noisier aircraft should be used to relieve the rates in residential areas close to airports?

I have already indicated that this is one possible scheme, but it may have particularly deleterious effects on the British aviation industry.

When the right hon. Gentleman receives the proposal, will he be prepared to consider calling a conference of all the local authorities involved to see whether something can be done to resolve their difficulties and the pressures which they are under from ordinary people who are suffering from this environmental abuse?

As I have said, I am always prepared to consider almost anything that might help. But the mind boggles a little at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, because the key to this problem is that anything one does to help one area generally has repercussions on another area. If one were to get all the local authorities into a room, I do not believe that there would be any hope of agreement on anything.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of the latest unemployment figures, he will now give consideration to changing the incentives available to firms in assisted areas.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Maryle-bone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on 17th January.— [Vol. 829, c. 3.]

Would not the Secretary of State agree, as over 1 million are unemployed, and in spite of what he has said to my hon. Friends this afternoon, that now is a most opportune time to abolish the differentiation relating to incentives between firms already established in assisted areas and those which wish to establish there? Surely the only criterion should be whether additional jobs will be created. The firms which are already there have proved their loyalty and are the better bet. Would the right hon. Gentleman also examine the present inflexibility of the loans procedure so that firms in assisted areas can obtain maximum benefit from it?

There is a great tendency, in spite of the points made this afternoon, to ignore the very considerable advantages which are already available to the indigenous concerns within special development areas and development areas. The issues raised repeatedly this afternoon revolve around the operational grant, the rent-free characteristics and the higher building grants characteristics payable to incoming industry. I am sure that the House recognises that the movement of new industry into the development areas is a fundamental necessity, which must be encouraged. There must certainly be contrasts in the advantages which are given to new industry to persuade it to move. There will be few hon. Members who do not believe that something of this kind is necessary. If on every occasion there is pressure to raise the level for existing firms, discrimination will not be maintained.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the representations made today by my hon. Friends from Bolton—I also add mine—that areas such as the textile districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, which suffer from being adjacent to intermediate development areas, should be looked at again, as my right hon. Friend himself indicated in an earlier reply on the subject of industrial development certificates?

Yes. I shall certainly take note of all those points, which are clearly very much in one's mind in looking anew at regional policy, as has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has received many representations from different bodies about the necessity of equalising in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and other hon. Members during Question Time today? Whilst I entirely accept that the major requirement is to encourage more and more new firms into the development areas, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that with this hiatus the efforts being made are by no means reaching the fruition required to improve the employment situation. In the present situation would it not be better for development areas if the right hon. Gentleman paid more serious and earnest attention, on only a short-term basis, to raising grants available for indigenous industry to the level of those given to incoming firms?

This is exactly the same point. The question I have constantly in mind is whether the raising of these levels to the equivalent of those for incoming industry would have an effective result in terms of new investment and employment. To date the evidence for this is very thin despite the very numerous representations made to me.

May I press my right hon. Friend to go a little further and say whether the review of regional policy, which the Government have in hand and which will no doubt be published fairly soon, will be more specific?

I prefer not to anticipate publication, which will be within a reasonable time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for these Questions and the interest in the subject is the uncertainty created by the Government themselves? In a rather cosy interview with the Sunday Telegraph a week ago, the Secretary of State said that we were not likely to have the report for six months. If that is so, will not uncertainty continue in the development areas and the other weaker areas of Britain, so that mobile industry will continue to sit back and wait until the review is complete? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put some urgency into the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was said in that article that it would be within six months.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the level of industrial activity in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

No, but I am confident that industry in Birmingham as elsewhere will see the benefit of the measures taken by the Government to expand the economy.

In spite of his confident reply, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Birmingham continues to rise and is now at its highest level for 35 years? Apart from the many suggestions which have been made today about the West Midlands, will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider expanding the ordering programme of the public sector for capital goods which could rapidly stimulate the economy of the engineering industry in the West Midlands?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the figures for the West Midlands, but I point out that they include nearly 8,000 temporarily stopped, of whom half are on strike, which is rather a different matter. The Government have already brought forward a considerable amount of nationalised industry investment which, I hope, will have the desired effect.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but does he not recognise that part of the argument about Government interference in industry is that moving industry into other areas only depresses Birmingham? Would he consider improving the position of small businesses, which are Birmingham's backbone? When will he move in that direction?

I agree that there is a great potential in the small business sector, and we have already announced many measures which are helping to allow small firms to expand. We are considering the remaining recommendations of the Bolton Committee to that end.

Is my hon. Friend aware that notwithstanding the 45 per cent. increase in sales of motor cars—and the motor industry is based fundamentally on Birmingham—since the July measures by the Chancellor of the Exchequer unemployment has gone up? How does my hon. Friend explain this extraordinary paradox?

There are many factors at work. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the recession in the engineering industry is not confined to Birmingham, or even to the country as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the steps taken to maintain essential fuel supplies, particularly to the elderly and to invalids, during the coal mining dispute.

As announced on the first day of the strike, we have enlisted the help of coal merchants and the National Coal Board, in association with local authorities and the medical profession, to ensure that priority is given to essential services and to households with special claims including those of the elderly and sick, subject, of course, to the co-operation of the mineworkers.

I welcome that reply. would my right hon. Friend confirm that if the situation worsens the Government will continue to ensure the necessary priority for pensioners, who depend so much on solid fuel supplies?

The Government will pay careful regard to the needs of pensioners and others who for various reasons rely greatly on these supplies.

Would the Secretary of State now like publicly to say "Thank you" to those much maligned miners' pickets who are working full time for nothing to ensure that these supplies get out? Little reference has been made to those striking miners who are working for nothing in their own time to make sure that supplies get to these people.

I have no hesitation in going on record as expressing my appreciation of the help which the mineworkers have given in this respect. That does not alter the fact that in other respects, as the hon. Gentleman knows, quite the reverse has been the case.

May we assist the right hon. Gentleman? He is concerned to safeguard essential supplies. Has he seen the headlines in the Evening Standard this afternoon saying that there will be no power supplies? May we assist him by asking him to influence his Cabinet colleagues to make a settlement with the miners and give them more cash?

As I said in my original reply, there is a possibility of cuts in power supplies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the number of explosions caused by gas leakage over the last six months throughout the United Kingdom; what estimate he has made of the damage caused; and what compensation has been paid to the sufferers.

In the second half of 1971 there were six explosions causing damage over £100 in which an external escape of gas was involved. It is as yet too soon to say in which of these cases the gas industry will pay compensation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall a particularly serious accident at Westoning in my constituency in November last which might well have proved fatal? Is he aware that people are becoming increasingly alarmed by the incidence of natural gas leakage, which is difficult to detect and which has proved a serious problem in other countries? Will he now consider instituting an inquiry into the extent of this risk and the methods which should be adopted to meet it? Finally, will he ensure that the Gas Council is suitably generous when it comes to compensation?

Professor Morton has recently done an investigation into the safety of natural gas, and his figures show a reduction in explosions from the time when town gas was in common use. I understand that the gas board concerned does not admit negligence in the incident in my hon. Friend's constituency and, of course, it would not be called upon to pay copensation unless it had liability.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many old people living on limited means are becoming increasingly reluctant to call in the gas board if they believe that there is a gas leak in their homes, for the simple reason that they are expected to pay a fixed charge for inspection? What plans has my hon. Friend for gas boards to make it clear that such people may claim back that cost through the social services?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for publicising that. It is a matter for the gas industry to fix its own scale of charges, but what my hon. Friend has said will help to make the position widely known among old people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that extreme and prolonged inconvenience, often over a period of days, has resulted in a disturbing number of cases following gas conversion and that over 16,000 complaints were received by the Gas Council in the past few years? Will he kindly institute an inquiry into the adequacy of the training of the gas engineers who do these conversions?

That is a matter which concerns not safety, but the convenience of customers. The performance of gas boards has improved greatly since the start of conversion and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the present converters are thoroughly trained and doing a good job.