asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the number of industrial development certificates that have been granted in the Dearne Valley constituency during each of the past four years; and if he will also state the number of jobs involved for males and females, respectively.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has been an intermediate area for some years but that unemployment has risen higher still and is now more than twice the national average? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to do something about the area? Why not make it a special development district? Does he want us to wait until the Industry Bill becomes law, hoping that something might be derived from that?

The hon. Gentleman will have taken pleasure, with the rest of the House, in the fall in unemployment between April and May, which we expect to be sustained in the June figures. In the travel-to-work area which includes the Dearne Valley, industrial development certificates approved this year alone are expected by the applicants to give rise to over 1,700 jobs when the projects are complete and full manned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the conversion to natural gas to be completed in England and Wales.

I am informed that more than 90 per cent, of all conversions in England and Wales will be completed by 1975. The whole programme will take a further two years.

I note that reply. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the gas boards have been able to overcome many of the problems which conversion has caused to consumers, such as bad workmanship, long delays in the supply of parts, and additional costs for new appliances? Such matters have been a source of great criticism by consumers and they have received scant attention from the gas boards. Has the position improved?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, and he has put forward a number of complaints. He will be glad to know that the majority of conversions have been completed without giving rise to complaint and that the rate of call-back has fallen to less than 15 per cent. The aim is to keep the rate of call-back to the minimum and to achieve even better results in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to protect the British insurance industry from the European Economic Commission's draft directives on insurance.

Under general arrangements agreed with the Community, we are in active consultation with the Commission on matters affecting our insurance industry including the form directives might take.

Would not the directives be damaging to the British industry, particularly its overseas earnings? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not accept them in their present form?

Only one directive has yet been published, but three are in the course of preparation. On all these matters we are in discussion with the Commission. The directive already published has yet to be approved by the Council of Ministers, and if it is approved by the Council the interim procedure for consultation will come into force. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are actively in discussion with the Commission on these issues.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from viewing the onset of the EEC with foreboding, the British insurance industry looks forward to it with great anticipation and sees it self becoming the leader of European insurance immediately we become a member?

Yes, Sir. The Government's preoccupation in this matter is to ensure that the maximum opportunity is available to the British insurance industry and not at all necessarily to protect it.

What attitude are the Government adopting in the discussions taking place?

I thought that I had made it clear. The attitude of the Government is to try to ensure that the maximum opportunity is available to our industry on entry into the EEC, and that will, of course, be our general attitude.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to refute statements about Concorde, promoted by people with a financial interest in the denigration of the project.

Concorde's current tour is an eloquent indication of our determination to demonstrate the capabilities of this aircraft.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the continuing Government support for the project. Is he aware that there is in existence an organisation dedicated to the denigration of Concorde? Many of my constituents wonder what the Government are doing about these weird professional Concorde "knockers" whose job prospects seem to depend on the creation of damaging propaganda. Will he do his best to refute this propaganda and give early opportunities to the public to see Concorde for themselves and to make up their own minds?

I believe that recent events have proved Concorde's ability to more than hold it sown with those who have a financial interest in knocking the project. I have decided that Concorde, having completed its tour of so many overseas capitals, should return to London next Saturday. I am arranging that, in the limited time available before the resumption of its test programme, all hon. Members shall have an opportunity to see the aircraft as guests of BOAC next Monday, although it will not be possible because of the numbers involved for everyone to board the aircraft. Further, Concorde will be on display to the public for part of next week-end.

I do not know who the "knockers" are to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. Is not he aware even at this late stage that there are still serious objections to the over-enthusiastic information being supplied by his Department? Is not he further aware that the cost of the project has at all times exceeded the Department's expectations? It is not good enough to attack those who have raised reasonable objections and to dismiss them as "knockers".

In any democracy it is right that legitimate objections should be raised, and they have been raised and considered by Governments from both sides of the House. It has been decided that they do not overwhelm the very real arguments for proceeding with the project. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, (Mr. Adley) has a serious point when he speaks of those who have a clear financial interest in delaying the purchase of Concorde—

Who? Name them.

Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the question. I do not think it requires the most sophisticated appraisal of sales prospects to believe that directors of certain American airlines have a financial interest in at least delaying, if not removing altogether, the possibility of buying Concorde, If they put forward arguments which could be reasonably interpreted as being aimed more at delaying their own financial commitments than at a serious appraisal of the aircraft, it is not unreasonable that people should see them for what they are and not expect these particular arguments to be blown up for more than they are worth.

Would my hon. Friend see that those hon. Members who have a significant number of Concorde workers in their constituency are not just allowed to view Concorde but are able to take a trip in it?

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. She and the whole House will be aware that approximately one in every four Members of the House has employees in his or her constituency engaged on the Concorde project. I am sure that she will forgive me when I say that her long-term interest must be that Concorde remains at Heathrow for the minimum time so that it can get on with its test programme.

The hon. Gentleman has accepted responsibility for this Question and he ought to tell the House who are these "knockers" who have a financial interest in denigrating this project. Is he not aware that there is still some concern, and will be continuing concern, on two or three grounds? First of all there is the noise of the aircraft on take-off, flyover and landing. Is he aware that it is to be the noisiest aircraft of any of the new generation aircraft for years to come? Secondly, there is the price of the aircraft and, thirdly there is the financing of its sales to BOAC. Is he aware that this latter must be causing some concern to the major airlines, as is shown by the fact that Air France and the French Government have still not reached an agreement?

I am only too glad to debate these matters with the Opposition. If the right hon. Member, through the normal channels, would like to seek a debate on the issue, I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends would wish to consider this most interesting development of doubts from hon. Members opposite, now that they do not carry the burden of taking any decisions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates that any development or prototype involves uncertainties by the mere definition of what one is trying to achieve. I believe that the whole country appreciates that what Concorde has achieved over the last three weeks is one of the most remarkable prototype sales campaigns that has ever been undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he discussed with the Japanese Government during his recent visit to Japan its scheme of generalised preferences in relation to Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Yes Sir. I emphasised to Japanese Ministers Her Majesty's Government's concern at the limited nature of the Japanese generalised preference arrangements for Hong Kong. They undertook to consider the points I raised.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not difficult to see what advantage there is for Japan making the present exceptions to its scheme of generalised preferences to Hong Kong? Is it not possible that a likely result would be simply to transfer to other developing countries in Asia which are the closest competitors of Hong Kong the trade in those items in which Hong Kong has an interest?

Yes. I believe there is a strong element of that. It seemed that the very comprehensive and wide-ranging lists of exclusions from the generalised preference scheme seemed at times irrational even from the Japanese point of view, and this point I naturally brought forcefully home to Ministers concerned. We are awaiting their reply to the submission that Her Majesty's Government have made to the Japanese Government on this subject, reinforced by what I said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the present position of the negotiations over textiles with the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 5th June to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).—[Vol. 838, c. 2–3.]

Since the British Textile Employers Federation assumes that at least 5,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the removal of quotas after entry to the EEC, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any policy to reduce this appalling job loss? Has he at least sought to secure an enforceable apportionment to the EEC textile imports according to either population or GNP on a basis that is fair both to the developing countries and to the Ten?

The hon. Gentleman's calculation in his letter to my right hon. Friend was very much greater than that which he has mentioned. He has mentioned the top end of the employers' calculation which, as he knows, was 3,000 to 5,000. This is certainly a serious matter and the Government are very much interested in the current discussions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of Press reports of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) which purport to attribute to the Prime Minister the statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading, Mr. Speaker. The purport, and I quote—

Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a newspaper, I must point out that he is not allowed to do so.

My memory will serve me. Is my right hon. Friend aware that reports attribute to Her Majesty's Government a statement that there is to be a continual rundown of the textile industry, which is regarded as necessary? Would be repudiate any such suggestions?

I think the report that my hon. Friend has cited represents accurately what the employers, and indeed to a considerable extent the unions, regarded as the likely result over the next three or four years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to accept a complete abolition of import quotas on cotton yarn with all the disastrous effects that would have?

Certainly not. I gave an answer about cotton yarn to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), on 21st April. That remains the position.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that our experience with wool textiles, like that of the Six, will be that there will be a marked increase in intra-Community trade and that with extra-Community imports the degree of penetration is not likely to be severe?

I hope my hon. Friend is right. I am sure that hon. Members opposite do, too. These are matters which are currently being discussed, and there is nothing further that I can say about them.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the series of disgraceful answers given by the right hon. Gentleman—

Order. The hon. Member must do it in the proper form—"unsatisfactory nature."

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been received recently from importers or manufacturers for further relief from duty for cotton yarn. under Section 7 of the Import Duties Act, 1958.

Eleven applications have been received for relief on imports to be made during 1972. Nine have been allowed, one withdrawn and the other is still under consideration.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a very disappointing answer since quite recently relief from duty was granted to 3-fold 8S cotton yard when the producers of that type of yarn in this country were passing through a difficult period, with the workers on short time, and when there were ample supplies available? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope he will take this sort of consideration into account before he makes decisions about these matters in future?

Those matters were taken into consideration. Relief is given only where the goods fit the criteria under Section 7.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Section 7 of the Import Duties Act is to be substantially revised by EEC legislation? Can he tell the House what changes are contemplated?

In simple terms, at the moment Section 7 relief is given under certain criteria as long as the interests of the producers in this country are not damaged thereby. If we join the Common Market, Section 7 relief will continue to be available on much the same basis as at present, subject to the interests of other Community producers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to assist in the provision of alternative employment at Consett and Stanley, County Durham, to offset the current loss of jobs at the Lead-gate Engineering works, at the Medomsley Colliery, at the Morrison Busty Colliery and at the Ransome Hoffmann Pollard works.

I am confident that the extensive measures to stimulate the economy and those foreshadowed in the Industry Bill will go a long way to reduce unemployment in Consett and Stanley, as elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that in the four establishments mentioned in my Question more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced within the space of a few weeks, and that, with an unemployment rate hovering consistently at around 7 per cent., that is a shattering blow to the area? Is it not time that instead of giving the sort of complacent answer he has given he gave some evidence of positive, urgent action?

The facts are that unemployment dropped from 7·8 per cent. in April to 6·5 per cent. in May and that a further reduction will follow in June. Moreover, special development areas like this are getting greater assistance than they have ever had before. On top of that, we are introducing a rate of growth in the economy faster than ever before, and that will be of assistance to areas such as the hon. Gentleman's.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that improvement in areas such as this has been such that he need not reconsider withdrawing the regional employment premium?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a Question about the regional employment premium, I shall be happy to deal with that point. I was answering the Question on the Paper, and saying that with special development area status this area is getting greater incentives than ever before.

Is the Minister aware that neither industrialists in the area nor workpeople share his confidence? Is he also aware that special development area status now means very little in west Durham because of the very silly extension of it by the Government to such a large area in the Northern Region? The truth of the matter is that in west Durham the general opinion is that this Government have written off that part of the world from industrial activities. When will he take urgent, positive measures instead of talking about the Budget incentives working through? There is no sign of that in west Durham, I can assure him.

The unemployment figures show a marked improvement and the new incentives are greater than ever before. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing a great deal to attract new industry into the area if he paints so black a picture as that.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now able to state his intentions regarding aircraft movement at night at Luton Airport in the summer of 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reductions he expects in night movements at Luton Airport in 1973.

I am pleased to tell the House that the Luton Corporation and the Luton airline operators have decided to reduce aircraft movements at night in the summer season of 1973.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure he appreciates that there is a growing desire in my constituency that the same summer night restrictions as exist at Heathrow and Gatwick should also be applied at Luton, especially when many in my constituency work in continuous noise throughout the day. Given that Foulness airport will not be operational for some time, can my hon. Friend say how he could further reduce night jet noise at Luton till Foulness is operational, which will then take away some of these night movements from inland airports?

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance of my interest in this matter. We are looking forward to the introduction of the much quieter TriStar aeroplane next year, and this is bound to be important in helping my hon. Friend's constituents. I agree that one of the factors which must help particularly is the opening of the new Maplin Sands airport as soon as possible

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the first reduction in aircraft movements that has ever been achieved with Luton Corporation and congratulate him upon the pressure he put on the corporation? If my arithmetic is correct—and I am not sure that it is—this appears to be only a 5 per cent. reduction in night movements in the next year compared with 1971, and that after a very considerable growth in previous years. Something a great deal more dramatic is required to protect the sleep of those who are living under the flight path.

I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me for not having with me the comparative figures for a year ago. I was dealing with the current year. What we must do is to achieve a down turn of the graph, which has been rising quickly, and certainly as compared with 1972 the number of night take-offs is reduced by 24 per cent. The actual numbers are: 1972, 1,890: and the estimate for 1973 is 1,440.

While I recognise that this is one method of reducing noise around an airport, for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible, and in the immediate vicinity of Luton, which will welcome this announcement, may I ask whether he can inform the House to what extent he has received any deputation from the tour operators' study group which is particularly keen that night flights should not be curtailed because of the adverse effect on holidays abroad?

The right hon. Gentleman raises one of the conflicting issues in this matter. One realises, in doing the sort of job for which I am responsible, that there is a balance of convenience. In direct answer to his question, I would say that I have personally received no such deputation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet reached a decision on the English Tourist Board's recommendations to him for statutory registration of tourist accommodation, statutory notification of prices and a voluntary system of classification.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 5th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 8.]

As we are now at the height of the tourist season, and in view of the general welcome given to the report, particularly in regard to prices notification, will my right hon. Friend undertake, consistent with the need to encourage discussion with the hotel industry, to try to move at such a pace that the benefit of the recommendations of the Tourist Board will be made available to next year's tourists?

Yes, I will certainly consider this as quickly as I can.

Is the Minister aware that there he has been dragging his feet, and that his Department has been dragging its feet, on this matter for far too long, and that this is a matter of vital importance not only to the tourist industry but to the country in so far as the balance of payments is affected? Will he start doing something now?

My Department has been involved in doing something about it for some time. As I said to my hon. Friend, I am considering the matter as quickly as I can, but, as the hon. Member probably knows, a number of different views are being put to the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will commission a study to make international comparisons on the effectiveness of consumer protection legislation.

The Council of Europe and OECD have both undertaken comparative studies of consumer protection legislationin member countries. I do not think I should be justified in commissioning a further study of this kind at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only the EEC countries which seem to have given higher priority than we have to legislation for consumer protection, and that it is extremely important that we should seek to discern how effective such legislation has been so that we can act in the most effective way possible to protect our own consumers?

It is for this reason that we are watching very carefully what other countries are doing, but the OECD, as my hon. Friend knows, covers all the most developed countries in the world, and conditions in the under-developed countries are very different indeed from our own. The protection given to consumers under the provisions of our criminal law stands up very well indeed by comparison to what is available to most consumers.

Is the Minister aware that the Council of Europe investigation has taken the form of asking the equivalent of the consumer council in each country concerned for an assessment of the effectiveness of that country's legislation? Does he appreciate that the Council of Europe inquiry, which is working under my direction, is having considerable difficulty in getting the information needed from the United Kingdom because of the abolition of the Consumer Council?

I have the greatest sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot get the information he wants. If he will write to me about it, I will do my best to help him.

Does the Minister know that in Canada a separate Ministry is concerned solely with consumer affairs and does he think that that might be worth looking at? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Queen's Speech indicated that legislation would be forthcoming this Session to give further protection to consumers? The Session is getting on. Is there any news about that?

My hon. Friend perhaps should await the answer to Question No. 20 which covers this point. I note what he says about Canada.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not regard him as an adequate substitute for the Consumer Council? Does he realise that in any international study this country will probably show up badly? I hope that he will not use the study as an excuse for further delay. We do not want more reports from the Government; we want signs of life. If that is asking too much from the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will at least give an indication that he is capable of action.

I would not dream of trying to take the place of the Consumer Council in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Action will be coming, I hope soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what instructions he is giving to overseas posts as regards finding out what possible ventures of British capital, in partnership with local capital, there are that could be insured under the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill.

Overseas posts already have instructions to report information on possible joint ventures to the Department for dissemination to industry. We are examining whether anything further is necessary in this respect. Applications for investment insurance by British firms involved in such ventures will be given sympathetic consideration by ECGD.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the benefits to Great Britain and the developing countries of capital investment in partnership, and particularly of feasibility studies carried out by British consultants? Will he ensure that commercial diplomats do all they possibly can to extend this as much as possible?

Yes, I give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance on this point. I have discussed it with the staff at every post I have visited over the last two years, and they are well aware of the possibilities. I have also stressed the part that British consultants can play.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the current rate of interest being charged, in view of the raising of Bank rate? Will he also comment on the dislocation caused to this service by the floating of the £?

These are to some extent separate questions but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate of interest charged by ECGD has come down.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest estimate he has made of the likely increase in the price of British Steel Corporation steel products upon accession to the European Economic Community on 1st January, 1973.

As I have already told the House, the aim is for BSC to move into profitability and regardless of entry into Europe some price increases will be necessary. The level of our steel prices within the Community will be determined by competition between the producers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some imprecision in that Answer and that an elaboration has been given topicality by the events of Friday? Are changes in sterling parity rates expected to increase the price of British steel, or otherwise? If the Government were unwise enough to move towards a system of price freeze or control, would my hon. Friend have authority under the Treaty of Paris to require compliance by the British Steel Corporation?

The price structure is for the industry to assess. Steel is operating in an internationally competitive market, and the intention of the BSC and the Government is that it should be profitable. On the rôle of intervention, my hon. Friend will be aware that the powers of direction which followed representation from the Consumer Council are being repealed by the European Communities Bill.

Who is in charge of BSC pricing—Lord Melchett or M. Jacques Ferry?

The hon. Gentleman should not draw too much from speculative reports based on what is said by spokesmen of the European Community. The British Steel Corporation is in charge of its own pricing policy.

I attended the final meeting at Irlam last Thursday, when it was made known that the plant was to be shut down by 1974, throwing 5,000 people out of work. One justification for it was that the rationalisation of the steel industry and the transfer of that work to other quarters would lead to an economic price for steel. The Question implies quite substantial increases; will my hon. Friend say a word about that?

I might perhaps correct my hon. Friend in his statement that the announcement on Friday implied the removal of 5,000 job opportunities. That is a mistake in the figures, and I know he will have them correctly. I welcome discussions with my hon. Friend and with hon. Members on both sides of the House on this problem. On the suggestion that the closure is in any way due to the pricing policy in Europe, that again is perhaps a misinterpretation of the true position. It is, of course, necessary to secure rationalisation of the industry so that steel can be competitive, and that applies whether or not we enter the Community and whatever the outcome of any other discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions relating to package holidays there were under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in each year since the Act came into force, and of these how many resulted in convictions.

There were no prosecutions in December, 1968. In the following three years and in 1972 up to mid-June, the Department has been notified of five, 15, 26 and 15 prosecutions and three, 11, 19 and 10 convictions respectively.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not agree that there are comparatively few prosecutions, despite the number of complaints? In view of the experience with Cosmos tours, of one of my constituents, will my right hon. Friend consider making it obligatory to state in the travel brochure whether the hotel or cruise ship for which bookings are being taken is still under construction or refit and what is the estimated completion date?

I will certainly think about that, but it would make the issue of brochures extremely difficult.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a highly satisfactory answer? Bearing in mind the millions of people who take their holidays abroad each year, the number of convictions is extremely small. Nevertheless, it is necessary for brochures to tell the right story. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that sometimes the blame lies with hotels abroad and not with the tour operator?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The number of convictions is very small when one realises that nearly 3 million tourists each year go on this type of holiday. He is also right in saying that sometimes the fault lies with the overseas hoteliers and not with our package tour operators. None the less, it is right that the House should take this matter seriously.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop thinking about this, as he said he would, and do something?

Any action that has to be taken is taken by the local weights and measures authorities and not by myself.

Would the hon. Gentleman look at the difficulties created by the protraction of the legal process, as happened in the Clarkson's case? Does this not raise a serious danger that some unscrupulous operators may use legal devices to delay adjudication until after next season's bookings are over?

I think everybody realises that certain legal proceedings take much too long, but I do not think I can deal with that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he had with the British Steel Corporation concerning his decision to commission McKinsey's to undertake a study of the British steel industry; when the report was received by his Department; and on what date it was shown to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

The McKinsey study on the international steel environment was commissioned with the full knowledge of the British Steel Corporation. The Report was submitted shortly after that of the joint steering group, and a copy was passed to the BSC immediately.

Is it not extraordinary that the work of the joint steering group was completed without both sides having knowledge of what the McKinsey study contains? Is it not also true that the British Steel Corporation, now having belatedly seen the McKinsey study, absosultely rejects its findings about the future size of the British steel industry?

No, I do not think it was extraordinary at all. It was a highly sensible arrangement. The whole purpose of it was to have a study made within the framework of the steel industry and to have, as a counter check, a major study undertaken by a well-known firm of consultants with deep experience in this whole field. There is no question of anybody acting belatedly. As soon as the report was available, it was passed to the corporation.

The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question. Is it not true that the corporation, now having seen the report, rejects its findings about the future size of the British steel industry?

It may well be that the corporation will not agree with what McKinsey said. That only shows the value of getting two views on the same subject. This was the purpose of the exercise, and that one may not agree with the other is perhaps quite normal.

Did the study have regard only to production problems, outputs and potentials and not to the administration of the corporation? If not, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be advisable to have an inquiry into the appropriateness of having the Corporation's headquarters in London?

The study carried out by McKinsey dealt not with the British Steel Corporation as such but with the inter- national steel environment within which the framework of future investment was to be considered. There may be a case for a deep study into the administration of the corporation, but that will be a matter for the corporation and not for me

Is the Secretary of State aware that in North Wales the steel industry employs 16,000 men? Could he say whether the study contains any grave implications for the Shotton works, which has 12 open-hearth furnaces?

The study has some reference to the future of all steel plants in this country because it gives a framework within which the corporation's strategic decisions are being worked out by the corporation. It would be wrong to pretend that it does not have a powerful influence on these matters. The number of people involved in each plant is a matter for serious concern, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House know how particularly I am concerned with these problems. However, it is right that the whole appreciation of the assessment of the future investment of the corporation should take place within the framework of an adequate knowledge of world circumstances, which is what the McKinsey study was all about. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that in many ways the future investment programme of the corporation is intimately caught up with the question of rationalisation of the corporation and the steel industry generally; they are matters which inevitably are intermingled.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries from industrialists with regard to the Manchester travel-to-work area have been received since the designation of the new North-Western intermediate area on 22nd March, 1972; and how many new jobs in total, and for men and women, respectively, are expected to result from these inquiries.

Eighteen inquiries for sites or premises. It is too early to say how many jobs may arise from these inquiries.

Is it not clear that, after three months of new incentives, not one single guaranteed new job has been provided by them? Therefore, in view of the fact that for the first time in history the North West has a higher rate of unemployment than Wales and that there are 2,400 further redundancies expected at Irlam, what further positive proposals have the Government to make to save the North West and Manchester from sliding into an irreversible decline?

In fact the IDC's granted since March have resulted in projects which should give rise to 900 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that the unemployment figures between April and May dropped by 2,500. It is the Government's intention to continue the strong downward trend in unemployment in the Manchester area which is obvious at present.

Does not my right hon. Friend sometimes weary of well doing? Does it not strike him, after having had only a few months of his new responsibilities, that with every new attempt to devise better gradations of industrial development status, those who receive them are dissatisfied and those who do not are even more dissatified?

I would say to my hon. Friend that well doing is a great deal less wearisome than ill doing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "downward trend of unemployment"—which was his phrase—did not manifest itself very markedly in the figures announced for the North West last Thursday—against a background of a contraction in the British Steel Corporation and the redundancies which are expected to arise in the textile industry? Will he give special attention to the growing unemployment and loss of job opportunities in the Greater Manchester area, and, indeed, in the North West generally?

The hon. Gentleman knows that under any Government there are bound to be contractions in the steel industry, and that is absolutely apparent. This adds to the size of the task we have before us, but I have told the House that we are determined to ensure that the expansion of employment opportunities which is going on in Manchester will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have now taken towards implementation of the chief aims of the Crowther Report on consumer credit.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Crowther Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a consumer credit ombudsman will be created as recommended by the Crowther Committee.

Consideration of the recommendations of the Crowther Committee for major reform of the law relating to consumer credit has reached an advanced stage. Their implementation would require complicated new legislation and my officials are now consulting various interests on a number of important technical points which arise.

While welcoming the Government's decision a year ago to remove hire-purchase restrictions, may I ask my right hon. Friend how long it will be before the consumer is protected by the obligation to disclose true rates of interest and the cost of credit? Will my right hon. Friend consider urgently amending the legislation to achieve that result?

I can assure my hon. Friend that this is exactly what we are doing. The Committee's recommendation in respect of disclosure of the true cost of credit is extremely complicated. This is only one aspect of the subject, and consultations will have to take place.

In view of the apparent growth in the amount of misleading information about the true cost of credit, would the Minister also bear in mind that the Crowther Report highlighted the state of confusion and fragmentation in consumer credit law? Will he consider taking the earliest possible action to give the consumer better protection in this respect?

Yes, my right hon. Friend and I have told the House that we hope to legislate comprehensively in this subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Younger Committee on Privacy is also believed to be about to recommend the creation of a credit commissioner? Will he please recognise the urgency of the situation, particularly bearing in mind the fact that, with the rapid rate of inflation under the present Government, more and more people can afford to live only on credit?

Yes, I recognise the urgency of this matter. It is also necessary in this complicated subject to get the answers right.

In view of the consultations which are taking place, can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to legislate in the next Session of Parliament if the Government wish to do so?

That is our hope, and I hope that it will continue to be the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are getting tired of the humbug and cant of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite, who are suddenly and very belatedly taking an interest in the protection of the consumer? They are all—with the exception of the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who asked one of the Questions and who came in too late to vote against the retention of the Consumer Council—seeking to convey the impression that they want to protect the consumer. Is this not utter humbug?

I think that very many people in the House and in the country will draw a distinction between protecting the consumer and the Consumer Council.

Since my right hon. Friend talks about more complicated legislation, will he bear in mind that there are many right hon. and hon. Members and a number of people outside who think that we could do with less complicated legislation? Will my right hon. Friend think again before introducing such legislation at an early date?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has slept on this report for 15 months and that if that has been an uncomfortable posture for him, it has led to even more discomfort for housewives who have been denied the protection that they would have had if the report had been implemented? Is he aware, further, that it is not good enough to do what he did last time and use the shambles of the Government's legislative time table as an excuse for bringing forward no proposals? While we understand why the Government cannot legislate at the moment, that is no reason why, 15 months' later, the right hon. Gentleman should not have given a detailed indication of the Government's intentions so that some firms could act in anticipation.

The hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable. It would have been impossible to produce anything approaching comprehensive legislation 15 months ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on representations made to him on behalf of the paper industry in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development met a delegation of Members on 8th June. The discussion centred mainly on the negotiations in Brussels between the EEC and the non-candidate EFTA countries insofar as they relate to the paper and board industries. My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government have been and will continue to be in close and constant touch with the United Kingdom paper and board industry about these negotiations.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. However, will not he concede that this is an industry which is likely to call upon the Government in relation to the provisions of the Industry Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, in relation to the firm of Wiggins Teape, he will give no assistance unless the closure notice is withdrawn in respect of the firm in my constituency which is a subsidiary of that company?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this closure. All I can tell him is that I have had no request from the company for assistance under the Industry Bill, should it be enacted in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who met our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development recently to discuss these problems were greatly encouraged to learn about the Government's positive line in the EEC negotiations on matters affecting the industry? On the domestic front, what consideration has my right hon. Friend been able to give to the industry's fuel oil costs?

The whole question of energy costs is under close consideration at the moment. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about our consultations with the industry. In these negotiations with the Community, we are seeking strongly to defend the interests of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to the Commission of the European Economic Community and the Belgian Government over the blocking by the Belgian Government of the take-over of Union des Proprietaires Beiges by the British company, Equity and Law.

Representations have been made to the Belgian Government seeking reconsideration of their decision in this case, and, failing that, assurances about their probable attitude to similar applications.

As one of the advantages of British entry into the Community is supposed to be the creation of European groupings, is not this unjustified discrimination against a British company? Has not the clause of the Belgian Commercial Code, under which this action has been taken, been condemned by the Commission, and should not strong representations be made to the Belgian Government and the European Commission that such economic nationalism is incompatible with the Common Market?

We made very strong representations to the Belgian Govern- ment. We cannot make representations to the EEC Commission since we are not yet a member of the Community. Perhaps it would help if I said that I understand that the Belgian Government expect shortly to pass legislation which will exempt Common Market firms from the sort of action which was taken against Equity and Law.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in the investigation of the question of dumping of industrial products in the United Kingdom by Japan and the United States of America.

We are in close touch with British industry on a number of cases involving imports from these countries but none is presently the subject of formal anti-dumping investigation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem has existed for a very long time and that some of us have made representations and have brought along deputations to the Ministry concerning the electronics industry, which happens to be my own interest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that there is a prima facie case to show that American firms are using cheap labour subsidiaries in the Far East to dump on to the British market electronic components with which we cannot compete and that this has resulted in one closure in my constituency and, I am sure, others in different parts of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remedy this very unsatisfactory situation?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, of course. There has been discussions with me, and with other Ministers in my Department, about these problems. However, none of the industries has yet presented a formal application for anti-dumping action supported by prima facie evidence of materially injurious dumping, so that we cannot take action in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. My right hon. Friend spoke about some of these matters in Japan when he was there recently.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of Japan, while there are immense opportunities for increasing bilateral trade between us to the mutual benefit of both countries, a great deal depends on the genuine determination by the Japanese at all levels to ensure that this is trade from which both parties can benefit equally?

When my right hon. Friend was in Japan he made that clear to both industry and Ministers, there and the situation is being reviewed in September.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of workers in this country in the ball bearing industry whose jobs are at risk as a result of unfair Japanese competition and that repeated suggestions have been made for anti-dumping legislation, import quotas, and aid to the industry itself, as well as for safeguards against the Japanese getting a base here in order to compete unfairly with us in the Common Market? Is not it time that the Government took action, instead of waiting till September to see what replies are forthcoming? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that in respect of the ball bearing industry, I am much too courteous to say that his replies so far have had little bearing on the problem?

The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that the Question is about anti-dumping. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is the same as my answer to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), that the industry has not presented any formal application. What my right hon. Friend did in Japan was to discuss matters on the broader basis of restricting excessive exports from Japan to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give general directions to the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation to move their headquarters out of the City of Westminster and into the development areas.

No, Sir, this is essentially a matter for the corporations themselves, but I have recently written to their chairmen asking them to bear the Government's dispersal policy in mind when considering the location of their offices.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an encouraging answer, but that we hope for much more? Is he aware, further, that my constituency is literally being choked to death by excessive demands for office accommodation in central London, whereas the development areas in which the coal and steel industries are primarily located are being starved to death by the shortage of service industries and would welcome these head offices? Is not it unjustified that these corporations should occupy vast and expensive premises in my constituency when they would be better sited in development areas and we should be better off without them?

I am sure that the chairmen of the nationalised industries will note with care what my hon. Friend said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the course of last Monday's debate this point was adduced by a number of hon. Members on this side of the House? Is he aware, further, that if the Coal Board's headquarters was shifted from Hobart House to Yorkshire it would give renewed confidence and an added boost to the coalfield and would reverse the ever-increasing spiral towards higher unemployment and start it on a downward trend?

I am not sure that I entirely followed the hon. Gentleman's argument. But there is common ground that the more offices that can be moved out of central London without detracting from the efficiency of the organisation, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Would my hon. Friend agree that Blackpool and the Fylde coast are very suitable areas for further office development?

Yes, indeed. They are areas in which I should welcome the opportunity of visiting the chairmen in their new offices.

Will the Minister reconsider the evidence on this matter, bearing in mind that many of us who were members of the Standing Committee on the nationalisation of steel put forward the point of view that has been put forward in the Question? Will he also ask the British Steel Corporation to give serious consideration to the announcement made last week, bearing in mind not only redundancies, which in Scotland we cannot afford to carry, but also social consequences? Will he ask the British Steel Corporation to give this matter some serious thought?

Yes. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question goes into a wider matter than the Question on the Order Paper. The point about dispersal is well known and is noted by the chairmen concerned.

Will the Minister ask the National Coal Board, the British Steel Corporation and other nationalised industries to undertake feasibility studies about this matter and to present their reports publicly, so that we can see what can be done? Second, should not the Government do something about office development permits in Central London which have more than doubled in the last two years, which is quite scandalous?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there should be any direction of labour or industry in peace-time, and I hope that he is not suggesting that the chairmen of these industries are unaware of the advantages there may be in getting out of London. Had it been considered necessary to require them to be out of London, that is a matter which hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches could have had in mind when they passed the necessary legislation.

Does my hon. Friend recall that it was a Conservative Opposition Amendment to, the Iron and Steel Bill which placed a statutory obligation on the British Steel Corporation to spread its administrative offices around the country? Despite that, the Tubes Division Offices in Glasgow have been transferred and the General Steel Division Headquarters has been downgraded. Will my hon. Friend press upon the British Steel Corporation that it is utter commercial nonsense to spend the fortune that it spends on maintaining headquarters in London when they should be near to where the steel is produced?

I am not sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that headquarters must be near the point of production. There may be counter advantages in headquarters being nearer to other centres. On my hon. Friend's point about the need to locate offices in the area, particularly Scotland, I know that he has brought this point to the attention of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation and that it will be noted.