asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek discussions with industrial companies which have received Government grants and which are moving out of London as to the future use of the land which becomes vacant once the companies move.

The use to which such land can be put is already subject to industrial development certificates, office development permits and planning procedures. I do not think that anything further is required.

Is the Minister not aware that that kind of pathetic reply is not good enough? After these companies have received, in many cases, millions of pounds of public money to move out, surely local authorities have some right as to the future use that is made of the sites on which those companies existed? At the moment, within London, vast sums of money—

Order. This is Question Time.

The hon. Member will be aware that the criticism we most often get from Labour benches is that not enough industry is encouraged to move into development areas. Registered vacancies in Greater London are now higher than they have been since 1966, while unemployment is virtually non-existent.

I am talking about land.

Does the Minister not agree that, although a company is no doubt entitled to get the market value for its land, in a case like this it is not entitled to decide on the use of the land after it has moved away?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that both central and local government have considerable powers over the use of the land through IDC and ODP policies, and through planning procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a general direction to the British Steel Corporation to expedite the acceptance, completion and delivery of orders in view of the damaging effects on British industry of the present delays.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a general direction to the British Steel Corporation to expedite supplies of steel to firms with large export commitments.

No, Sir. The British Steel Corporation is already doing all it can to meet the demand for steel.

I am sure the whole House would echo what my hon. Friend has said about such an able and devoted man as Lord Melchett and would want to add its condolences to Lady Melchett in the circumstances.

I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that this is not a matter in which the Government can intervene between one customer and another. She will also realise that the present capacity is dependent upon the investment plans made between three and five years ago, which were then at a much lower level than they have been in the past three years. That capacity cannot be made up quickly.

We accept that the Government cannot intervene between one firm and another, but have the Government had any discussions with the British Steel Corporation to lay down some general guidelines about the corporation's rationing policy, and which group of exporting firms should be given priority? If they have not done so, will they do so?

The corporation has told me of the general lines which it is following, but it would be wrong for me to intervene in general management decisions at this time. The corporation has obligations to its customers who require steel for work at home and for export purposes. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that total production of steel in the past five months is 13·2 per cent. above the comparable figure last year.

I accept that the British steel industry is again letting down the economy, as it has done ever since it was nationalised, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a further reflection of the lack of capital investment during the time when the previous Government were responsible for the corporation?

Yes. My hon. Friend knows that investment prior to 18th June 1970 was at a very low level and that it has risen to a very high level during the three years of this administration, especially in the recent plans that have been announced.

I should like, Mr. Speaker, to associate myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends with what has been said by the Minister about Lord Melchett. Perhaps we may discuss the other matters on another Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with Norway concerning a Common Market shipping policy.

None, Sir. But representatives of the United Kingdom and Norway participate regularly in discussions on shipping policy questions in several intergovernmental organisations.

Should not we have preliminary discussions with the Norwegians, particularly as the Common Market Commission has put forward an outline proposal that Common Market maritime traffic should be carried on Common Market vessels? Will my hon. Friend now say that the Government will have nothing to do with a restrictive practice such as that?

It is always open to the Norwegians to make their views known, and there are effective channels of communication between them and us. My hon. Friend will remember that last week he was told by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs that we shall bear in mind his concern with the possibility of discrimination against Norway in this as in other matters, and I am sure that nobody will be more assiduous than him in keeping us up to the mark.

In view of the importance of the Norwegian shipping fleet, does not the Minister concede that it is of the utmost importance that the whole of Western Europe should have a coordinated policy not only for shipping but for shipbuilding?

Shipbuilding goes somewhat wide of the mark on this Question. We are aware of the importance of shipping to the Norwegians. The hon. Gentleman may take comfort from the fact that in practice there is a wide measure of agreement in Western Europe on many shipping policy matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amount of money the Government have spent, over each of the past three years, on a national research programme for the development of low-cost energy from coal; and if he will make a statement on the kind of co-operation that is taking place between the United Kingdom and other countries on this type of research.

None. The primary responsibility for research in this field rests with the National Coal Board,although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility to approve the general lines of the board's research activities. Almost the whole of the board's research and development programme, which amounts to £5·3 million in the current year, is aimed at mining coal at the lowest possible cost and increasing its competitiveness as an energy source. There are also a number of proposals for collaborative research being processed through the European Coal and Steel Community machinery with a view to attracting support from Community funds. The board is also continuing to co-operate with the United States of America on a very substantial basis.

The Minister gives the impression that the Government are not very interested in research into the use of coal as a low-cost source of energy. What encouragement is he giving to the National Coal Board on the fluidised bed combustion system and the coalplex system of burning coal? If it is true that there are more than 33 million tons of coal in stock, what plans have the Government to ensure that the coal is used? Will the Minister consider having another word with the Central Electricity Generating Board about the two oil-fired power stations it wants to build?

On the last point, there are continuing discussions. With regard to the general research programme, my right hon. Friend is advised by the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, which takes a keen interest in the adequacy of the programme. With regard to fluidised bed combustion, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that a joint company has been set up by NCB, NRDC and BP to exploit fluidised bed combustion, and experimental work is going ahead on a collaborative basis with the United States.

Given the rapid depletion of world oil resources, surely it is not too soon for the National Coal Board to be thinking about restarting its research programme on how to devise an economic means of extracting oil from coal?

My hon. Friend knows that a lot of work has been done on this, and a lot is going on now with the United States of America. Close touch is being kept with those developments although the conditions there are somewhat different from those which prevail here.

Does not the Minister agree that the stumbling block of the coal industry for a long time has been the lack of a long-term coherent fuel policy? Is it not unfortunate that the Minister shows such lack of interest in the research that will provide him with the answers to this question?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not regard support of £5·3 million per annum as demonstrating a lack of interest in the research. A great deal of research and collaboration is going on and the hon. Gentleman will remember the Coal Industry Act and the large amount of public funds being used to support the coal industry.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that at least some of the new generating plants are dual-fired, rather than only oil-fired?

All questions of fuelling are being given careful consideration, and all these factors are being taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement about BSA.

Norton Villiers Triumph Limited has offered to acquire the whole of the issued share capital of the Birmingham Small Arms Company Ltd. on terms which were set out in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) on 11 th June.

Will the Minister bear in mind that it is now nearly three months since I brought two deputations of shop stewards from the Triumph factory at Meriden to see him, and that they were under the impression that the whole matter could be sorted out in about 10 days? Is he aware of the large number of rumours circulating about closures and redundancies, and will he make it clear to Mr. Dennis Poore that there is a prime need for him to meet the workers as soon as possible?

This is a complex matter. There were seven major agreements to be completed as well as a number of financial arrangements to be made. I have written to Mr. Poore telling him of the meeting I had with the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the employees on 22nd March, and of their expressed wish to meet him.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he issued an order under the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Act 1964 instructing the Beecham group of companies not to produce any information or documents held in Great Britain to the United States Department of Justice in connection with an antitrust suit alleging high profits on antibiotic sales in the United States of America.

As I informed the hon. Member in my answer to his Question on 25th May, the direction was given because it appeared to the Secretary of State that an order made by the district court for the District of Columbia in the United States of America upon the Beecham Group Ltd. to answer certain interrogatories demanded by the plaintiffs in the case constituted an infringement of the jurisdiction to which the United Kingdom was entitled under international law.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the Government regard that attitude as being consistent with the attitude they have displayed in the Hoffmann-La Roche affair when that company was accused of making excessive profits and failing to co-operate to provide information and material to the Monopolies Commission?

The Monopolies Commission would have welcomed additional information from the Roche company but it had no powers under our law to require it to be given. There is no comparison between the limited information that the commission requested from Roche and the much larger mass of information sought of the Beecham Group under the American proceedings. In the Roche proceedings no question arises of infringing foreign jurisdiction because the commission has no power to require information from companies abroad.

It is not only the Monopolies Commission legislation which applies here, but also the Counter-Inflation Act, in which the Government asked Parliament to give them power to seek information of a wide character from many firms, including multinational firms resident abroad. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman modify his answer to indicate whether the Government believe that in certain circumstances foreign Governments could object to that information being given?

The question of the extent to which foreign Governments can or cannot object depends to some extent on their legislation, which is a matter of detail in given cases. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in making an assessment of allowable costs and proper pricing practices the Price Commission may take account of the apparent validity or non-validity of transfer payments between companies in this country and companies abroad. The extent of enforcement would be a matter of variation in each case. Enforcement by the powers given under the Counter-Inflation Act within this country is the same in relation to a multinational company as it is in relation to a national company within the limits of United Kingdom jurisdiction.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to make it necessary for public companies to indicate in their annual reports which individuals receive from them either more than £10,000 per annum or benefits of value in excess of £10,000 per annum; and how much is paid for these purposes for each person concerned.

I am at present reviewing the disclosure requirements of the Companies Acts.

While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making his review, will bear in mind the considerable evidence that extraordinarily large sums of money have been paid to private individuals by some companies and that, while those sums are not necessarily improper, it is desirable for them to be paid in an open and above-board manner, so that shareholders and other interested parties may know about them?

It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we attach great importance to ensuring that adequate information about the activities of companies is made available to shareholders and others, and the factor mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is one that I shall take into account in my review of the legislation.

I support the object of greater disclosure, but will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that many self-employed people earn more than £10,000 a year, including barristers, bricklayers, and plasterers on the lump?

I bear in mind all the examples mentioned by my hon. Friend. The fact that they are self-employed persons puts them in a slightly different position from those who act as directors of or who are employed in that capacity by companies in which the public subscribe by means of the ownership of shares.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister recently said that it was no part of Conservative philosophy that large sums of money should pass between companies and individuals outside what is given in other forms of activity in the professions and other walks of life? In view of the fact that so many people are making large sums of money out of capital gains from floating companies and elsewhere, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about implementing this part of what now seems to be at least the Prime Minister's policy?

Taxation policy and the policy in relation to company law in respect of this matter have to be considered alongside each other. It is right that there should be disclosure of information to the extent finally judged to be correct. It is right that taxation policy should bear fairly on those within the net of income tax. It is also right that there should be no improper or unfair profits. But it does not follow that in the working of our economy it is right to presume that everyone who makes money is necessarily to be regarded as a villain. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the matter in its proper perspective, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received on the issue of managerial and supervisory boards as part of the revised structure for British industry.

I have received observations on the idea of a two-tier board from a number of individuals and organisations.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is one of the most important decisions that the Government will be called upon to take under the fifth directive? Is he also aware of the importance of seeing that the worker is associated with his own company and is given an opportunity to participate in high-level decisions? How does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to handle this matter? Will he do it by way of the new Companies Bill, or by some other method?

I agree that this is a very important issue, to which the Government are giving serious consideration. We believe that it is important that there should be wide and informed public discussion about it. We shall shortly be bringing forward our proposals for the amendment of company law generally and in due course we shall be making available some suggestions, in the light of the EEC directive, as to the way that the point that my hon. Friend raises can be publicly considered and discussed. While the Government regard this as a matter of substantial importance, they do not conclude that it is easy to find a single solution in a single legislative means for the important business of seeing that those employed in companies or elsewhere are properly associated with and consulted about decisions affecting their interests.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a position to say whether the Government's proposals will be published as a Green Paper, so that there will be no commitment about them and so as to allow full discussion to take place? Secondly, will he confirm that what he has in mind is not window-dressing but a real transfer of power to those working in industry? Thirdly, will there be an opportunity for the House to determine this, or are we in this matter, as in so many others, to be told what we are allowed or forced to do by the European Commission?

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may believe about window-dressing, there will be no element of window-dressing about our proposals in this respect. I shall bear in mind, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the necessity for Parliament to join in the discussion of these matters, along with the many parties interested in them. With that in mind, the probability is that our proposals in respect of this matter will be published in the form of a Green Paper. It is clear from what has been said and done in Europe and in different European countries, and from opinions expressed in this country, that no one, including the right hon. Gentleman, is sure that he has identified the right way to approach this problem, which affects the whole of British industry.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect upon the great virtue of publishing a Green Paper on this subject so that Parliament may have an opportunity to express a view upon it and, above all—without entering too emotionally into relationships between this and other law-making institutions—upon the fact that industrial relations, of which this is part, are far too important a matter for us to receive our law on them written in Brussels and handed to us on a plate?

There is no question of this matter proceeding in the way described by my hon. Friend. Proposals made from Brussels in the context of the European Economic Communities are still in the form of drafts and are still under discussion. It is recognised in Europe, as it is in this country, that there is no simple or direct way through. That is why I say that the Government will be anxious to hear views and to have this matter widely discussed.

As we are all obviously dedicated to workers' self-management and workers' control in industry, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in the Green Paper, the views of Professor G. D. H. Cole, who argued for many years on the question of worker participation in management, will be taken into account and perhaps followed by the Government?

I think that the last proposition is not immediately probable. As for the hon. Gentleman's earlier observation, that is the difficulty about an important human, social and industrial problem of this kind. It is so easy to find oneself attached to slogans, phrases, words and jargon. I have no doubt about the importance of the problems covered here, but I warn the hon. Gentleman, without any disrespect, against getting himself too firmly hooked even on those slogans to which he is most attached.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards applications for natural expansion of firms and industries in places outside the assisted areas.

Industrial development certificates are generally approved for projects with strong local ties and modernisation schemes involving some increase in employment.

I appreciate the need for new industry in the development and other assisted areas, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that this will not be at the expense of the natural expansion of firms in other areas? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the imbalance that this causes industry in such places as Birmingham? Will he undertake to consider and judge each application for an IDC on its merits?

Yes. I can give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. We have taken a more flexible attitude towards IDCs, especially since the spring of last year, and have been anxious to ensure that they are not used to frustrate investment which is not, of its nature, mobile.

Is the Minister aware that some areas, such as North Staffordshire, do not receive anything like the assistance that they need? Since North Staffordshire is dependent upon declining industries like coal and pottery, and on a steel industry which is about to be taken away from it, will the Minister commission a special inquiry to see how the region can be assisted?

I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the hon. Gentleman and a delegation the other day. I know that he was delighted to note the enormous fall in unemployment in the area. It is now below the national average, I think that my recollection is right when I say that we have approved more IDCs in the past 15 months than in the previous four years.

With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), can my right hon. Friend identify any single area, town or district in the whole of the United Kingdom which thinks that it is receiving the assistance to which it is entitled?

I do not know that I have had as many representations from my hon. Friend's area as from other areas, but I realise that he, in common with a number of other hon. Members, may feel that, successful as the Government have been, there is still yet more to do.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no more searching test of a Government's commitment to regional policy than their attitude to IDC applications from the South-East and Midlands during a period of economic boom? Is he aware that there is evidence that there has already been a dangerous relaxation in this area and that many of us who believe that regional policy will help not only employment but congestion problems in the Midlands and South-East will be watching very carefully?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a dangerous relaxation. However, his colleagues from the London area, from whom I have been receiving representations this morning, take the opposite view, as does the Labour Party in control of the Greater London Council. I believe that we have the balance right. We are using IDCs to steer mobile projects to the regions but we are accepting modernisation projects and a number of major developments in the South-East and West Midlands which it would not be sensible to try to steer in this way.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give general directions to the gas and electricity boards that they should consult together to reduce the money spent by each on advertising to encourage the public to use their services, in view of the fact that each is a monopoly supplier in its own field.

No, Sir. This is a matter which is best left to the commercial judgment of the boards concerned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to have two public bodies spending public money inviting the public not to buy the product of the other in an area in which, between them, they have a monopoly? If he is not prepared to give a general direction, will he be prepared to invite the chairmen of the respective boards to have consultations with each other?

The gas and electricity industries are not the only suppliers of domestic fuel. Coal and oil are also competing in this sphere. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend believes that a completely cosy relationship between the two industries would ultimately be in the interests of the consumer.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these industries have no absolute monopoly but are in competition with every form of consumer spending? Does he also agree that they are expected to act commercially and to pay their way? If advertising is to be condemned for public enterprise, surely it should equally be condemned for private enterprise?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that competition with other industries must be fair. It is my responsibility to ensure that that competition is fair. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that there is a real rôle in this area for consumers and consultative councils. If they believe that matters have not been properly presented, or that there has been unfair and improper expenditure, they have a rôle which they will undoubtedly fulfil.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and European Governments regarding a common energy policy.

The Government maintain close contact with our European partners on energy matters. both through EEC institutions and bilaterally. On 22nd May, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy reported to the House on 23rd May, the Council of Ministers considered a range of energy policy issues. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry attended the meeting and certain specific items were agreed, and the Commission was invited to come forward with further proposals on other matters by the end of the year.—[Vol. 857, c. 473–90.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he can have meaningful discussions with the Community and other institutions on energy policy before presenting to the House an indication of the energy mix that we are likely to have in, say, 1980? Will he assure the House that we are unlikely to alter our licence agreements to meet any demands that the Commission might place upon us until we are sure that our offshore supply industry can get the same take from these fields as other countries, such as France and, perhaps, Norway, have from their industries?

On the energy scene the Government have announced and made clear their decisions on a whole range of specific issues in the nuclear, oil and coal industries. The Government have repeatedly made clear that the oil finds are national assets and will be used to bring the maximum benefits to the United Kingdom's economy.

Will my right hon. Friend work out a co-operative arrangement through the EEC or the OECD? If so many of these countries have similar interests, and we have the coal and energy that the European countries have not, are we to dilute our purpose to accommodate them?

There is a wide range of energy matters concerning both the Common Market and other countries in the Western world on which sensible collaboration and discussion of ideas is important. We have discussed these matters in both the OECD and the Community.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was questioned by me on this aspect of energy policy. Does he agree that statements being made in Europe, for example, that North Sea oil is European oil are causing concern in this country? Does he also agree that it is time that this House was informed about the Government's policy towards Europe and that, if there has to be a European energy policy, it should be informed, and we should indeed debate it?

The House will be kept constantly informed as talks take place. The oil and gas deposits on the Continental Shelf were not discussed at the Council meeting. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that these are national assets which will be used for the benefit of our economy.

There is no doubt about the ownership of the oil, but would it be helpful now, or in the near future, for the Government to make clear the extent to which they believe Europe should participate in decisions on the use and development of North Sea oil?

I repeat that this is a national asset of the United Kingdom. Concerning co-operation on energy matters—not only oil, but nuclear energy, coal resources, and others—it is obviously vital for Europe as a whole and the British economy that we have an energy policy that ensures that the industries of Europe are kept moving.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the managements of the nationalised coal, gas and electricity industries regarding the applications which those industries will submit to the Price Commission for price increases.

I have discussed with the Electricity Council the issues involved in an application by the industry to the Price Commission. The British Gas Corporation kept me fully informed of its intentions, but no issue arose requiring discussion. The National Coal Board also kept me fully informed of its intentions, but NCB prices for coal are not subject to the code. There is no question, therefore, of an application.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a somewhat preoccupying reply? As the Price Commission, under the code, is already required to disregard the need of the nationalised industries to bring themselves back to a more comprehensible and sensible financial posture, surely it is most undesirable that there should be a prejudging by the Government of any price increase that they might obtain from the commission before they go to it. Is not the decision by the commission to reduce the increase that the Coal Board requires and requested in contradiction of our obligations under the Treaty of Paris?

There has been no prejudging of the application that has been put in. The application by the Electricity Council on behalf of the industry is its application. Whether, under the code, the Government have any right to make any decision on the outcome does not yet arise.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government, by their constant interference in the pricing policies of the nationalised industries, have treated those industries very shabbily, with the result that they have lost track of commercial accountability?

Intervention in the pricing structures of these industries goes back a long way. The overriding consideration is counter-inflation. It is essential that the Government take whatever action they properly can to ensure that their counter-inflation policy is successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has about the payment of sub-poverty line wages outside South Africa by United Kingdom multinational companies.

United Kingdom companies are not required to inform the Government of wages paid by them to employees outside the United Kingdom.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Pfizer and Hoffmann-La Roche—both United Kingdom-based multinational companies—which sell some of their chemical products to the National Health Service at 40 times the foreign sale price, also pay their chemical workers in Turkey at one-ninth the rate of their American chemical workers, which is well below the poverty line? Is it moral for the British Government to trade with companies that so blatantly engage in labour exploitation?

It is depressing, but it is a little difficult to have detailed knowledge of the rates of wages paid to Turkish employees of two international companies. The House is investigating the position of United Kingdom companies in South Africa, and that is one distinct question on which informed opinion can focus. The question of pricing policy by Roche and other commercial companies is primarily looked at—and it seems a sensible starting point—from the point of view of whether the National Health Service, which is financed by taxpayers and operates for the benefit of this country, is getting the best bargain that it can in relation to the prices that it pays. Obviously, those concerned with that matter will bear in mind the points of a different nature that have been made by the hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know of and welcome, as I do, the expansion of our trade with East European and other Communist countries. Is he able to confirm that we are adequately informed on the question whether any of their companies or organisations with whom we trade employ men at wages which are at about the poverty-line level, or whether any of them are in prison camps working as slave labourers? Why do we not hear some more about that from hon. Gentlemen opposite?

My hon. Friend raises a point of equal importance. There is express statutory provision, dating from the 1957 Act, in relation to foreign prison-made goods being imported into this country. The point made by my hon. Friend illustrates the limits of the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament in this country, and the limits, which in the last resort it is for the House to decide, of the extent to which we can pursue inquiries of this kind in relation to international trade with countries that are far less willing to disclose information about conditions of employment in their countries than are those with which we deal more regularly, and about which it is much less difficult to make judgments. If we were to run up across the world barriers, of the kind that are logically pressed for by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should find ourselves in a difficult international trading situation.

The answers given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to this and earlier Questions underline the legitimate anxieties felt in this country and many others about the power of multinational corporations. They can overcharge—and in the case of Roche they have overcharged—the British National Heath Service for drugs. They have power to invest abroad, employ people at low wages and then compete unfairly against British workers. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirmed earlier, he does not even have statutory power to enforce the provision of information by such companies. In the Green Paper on companies legislation, will the Government please give serious attention to the power of the multinationals that bring some benefits but also tend to erode national sovereignty and affect both workers and organisations in the countries where they operate?

Anyone who tries to take an intelligent look at the world trading scene is aware of the position of multinational trading companies, but in looking at the situation one must take account of the extent to which they provide a wide range of investment, sometimes in this country and sometimes in the form of British multinational companies being able to invest abroad to increase the capacity of our country to export. The factors raised by the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be overlooked, but I think that they have to be set alongside other factors, including the power—often the impenetrable power—of State trading monopolies in countries where it is impossible to discover anything at all. These things must be kept in perspective.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the inquiry into the collapse of Rolls-Royce Limited under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

The inspectors have now submitted their report and it is being considered.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many shareholders, including several of my constituents, are seriously concerned about this state of affairs and feel that their interests are the last to be considered?

That is why the Government decided to have a full detailed in- vestigation into and a report on this company. I received the report only a few days ago, but it will be considered urgently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there are Rolls-Royce workers who for many years put their savings into shares in the company and are concerned about the present position? As things develop, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the representations that I and others have made?

Yes, Sir.

What is my right hon. Friend's policy about the publication of reports of investigations under this section? What, for instance, will be his policy about publishing the report on the V and G Insurance Company?

I cannot answer specific questions on that issue. As regards reports generally, it would normally be the practice of the Government to publish them. The only reason why that would normally not happen is if my Solicitor or the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that it would prejudice any criminal or civil proceedings which might arise on the report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that the investigation into the Lonrho affair will be in public, or that the full report be published.

The investigation by inspectors into the affairs of Lonrho Limited is being conducted under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 and takes place in private. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, the reports of such investigations are normally published unless there are substantial reasons for not doing so, such as the risk of prejudicing court proceedings.

Why cannot we have our Watergate if the Americans have theirs? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that this report will be published before the General Election, even though it may be designated an obscene publication? What will his reaction be if we say that we shall scrub the Tory face of capitalism by nationalising Lonrho?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his epithets and to express his lust for sensationalism if he so desires. This report of the inquiry will be handled in a way appropriate to the circumstances, exactly as I have indicated. The inquiry will proceed and publication will be decided by the same standards as every Government have applied under Section 165 of the Act. That is as it should be, and as it will be.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the curious thing is that now that the whole subject has been aired again in the media there is an indication of stronger public disquiet about the Pergamon affair than about Lonrho?

As the latest Pergamon report has not been published it would not be right for me to make any specific comment on that.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the procedure allows inquiries into the activities of Lonrho or subsidiaries outside this country, for instance, in South Africa?

The position is that the investigation is primarily into the affairs of the Lonrho Company itself—the London-based holding company. The inspectors have power under Section 166 to inquire into the affairs of subsidiaries to the extent that they consider relevant and necessary for the purposes of investigation into the affairs of the holding company. If a subsidiary is based abroad, inspectors can pursue inquiries into that subsidiary, but the jurisdiction that they can exercise does not extend outside the territory of this country. Thus, in so far as they make inquiries abroad, it will not be possible to compel witnesses to attend or to command the production of books and papers. They can question those directors of a subsidiary who are directors of the London-based board about the affairs of both companies.

Is not the case of Lonrho totally different from some technical inquiries that have taken place in the past, in that the Prime Minister denounced the company before the inquiry was set up? Is it not important that the public at large, including shareholders, should know what went on in Lonrho and why the Prime Minister denounced the company? In those circumstances, a long private inquiry with no certainty of publication at the end would totally fail to erase the anxiety that has been aroused by the Lonrho case and, as has quite properly been said by the right hon. Gentleman, could extend into many other companies.

In considering the question of publication, when that question comes to be decided whoever is then responsible for that matter will consider the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman and, manifestly, as the shape of the statute makes clear, there is a public interest in the publication of reports of this kind. Clearly, the factors mentioned by the Prime Minister demonstrate the nature of the public interest, but it would not be right, in advance of completion of the inquiry, to conclude that in all circumstances public interest should be allowed to override the other matters that I mentioned in my original reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of alleged abuse of VAT charges have been received in connection with dry cleaners and laundries.

My Department has received 95 complaints of incorrect price adjustments by dry cleaners, laundries and launderettes since the tax changes on 1st April. Detailed information about the pattern of complaints dealt with locally is not available.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my trading standards services department in Slough made a complaint against a firm of dry cleaners and launderers on 10th April, that no reply was received until the end of May, that the firm was instructed to amend its prices on 24th May, which it did, until 28th May, when it increased them on the ground that raw material prices had gone up? Is he aware that there are great difficulties in communication between the VAT division and the Price Commission, and that this is resulting in general chaos in the whole operation, which is largely regarded as a farce by my consituents?

I am not aware of the validity of the general observations that the hon. Lady has made. As she knows from the letter that I have written to her about this case, there was some difficulty in establishing contact between the inspector and the proprietor of the company in question, but the complaint was investigated by the weights and measures inspector. He communicated his ruling on the matter to the company, the company reduced its prices, but the Price Commission has now been asked to investigate whether the increases that the company has since made comply with the provisions of the Price and Pay Code. The important fact is that many price reductions have been made since the commencement of stage 1, including a large number since the coming into effect of VAT. It is wrong to suggest that this machinery is ineffective.

But what action is the Department now taking to search out these VAT abuses? Will the Minister bear in mind that although the specialrôleof the Weights and Measures Inspectorate came to an end over six weeks ago there are still price increases by cleaners and laundries, and particularly by restaurants, beyond those that are legitimate under VAT? What processes of detailed VAT scrutiny now exist at High Street level?

Of course, the initial peak of complaints of price increases due to VAT was noticed when VAT started. The number of complaints now attributable to VAT has shrunk to much smaller proportions. Since the commencement of stage 1, price reductions effected by the Prices Unit, the Weights and Measures Inspectorate and the Price Commission have amounted to more than 10,000. Those effected by the Price Commission through its eight regional information centres have amounted to 150,000, which have been done voluntarily. That shows the extent to which the Price Commission is effectively taking over the rôle initially discharged by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new jobs and renewed use of empty factories his Department expects in the London borough of Brent in motor engineering.

I am afraid that I cannot forecast what firms may eventually occupy empty factories in the London borough of Brent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department examine in depth the consequences of British Leyland's massive development programme, which was announced recently, particularly in relation to the Park Royal Industrial Estate, which up to 10 years ago was more or less one of the centres of engineering for the motor industry? Although we still have Park Royal Vehicles making London buses, many skilled motor engineers are now working as window cleaners, and in jobs of that sort. In this development programme there is, therefore, a great need for this section of London not to be forgotten.

In so far as this is a matter for me, I shall certainly take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he will be glad to know that since the beginning of last year the IDCs which have been granted for all projects in Brent—it is estimated—should provide over 500 new jobs. There is a very low level of unemployment in the borough at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of his policies on regional development.

My right hon. Friend will be publishing this summer a report on the discharge of his functions under the Industry Act in the financial year ending 31st March 1973. If, however, my hon. Friend has any particular point on which he would like prior information, I should be glad to supply it.

Yes, indeed, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is it true or untrue that our central and non-central areas will be designated on 1st July? In view of the relevance of this matter to the whole question of regional development and the many answers that we have had in the past saying that the intention was that the designation would be by 1st July, according to the present programmes, will my right hon. Friend say whether they will be designated by the Commission on 1st July? If not, when?

It is the intention to finalise this matter before 1st July. I can confirm that that is the aim under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession.

What did the CBI say to the Government about REP?

In due course, one will be able to tell the House what the CBI and the TUC have said—

The Minister knows very well.

The CBI has published its views and it is for the hon. Member to come to his own conclusions about whether it would have been likely to say the same thing to the Government. The Government's position is that they are now having discussions with the CBI and the TUC.

May I warn my right hon. Friend that if the decision to build a seaport at Maplin proceeds he may have to face pressure from another direction on his regional policy to allow extensive industrial development there? Has he yet given thought to this problem?

In the debates about Maplin, the Government have given close consideration to the regional implications.

Now that the Minister has confirmed that the decision on central areas will be made on 1st July, will he say whether the final decision about the application of the Common Market regional policy will be taken by this House, or will it be taken by the Community and enforced on us whatever view we may take of that policy?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession there is an obli- gation to supplement the existing rules of the Community to take the British situation into account. We have made it clear that this will not involve any reduction in the level and coverage of the regional aids that we introduced last year, and I believe that that is the point that concerns the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last had official discussions with the Central Electricity Generating Board.

I last met the Chairman of the CEGB on 5th April. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry meets him frequently.

When my right hon. and hon. Friends next meet the board, will they ask its southern region to desist from its present anti-social policy of sending the coal for its Croydon power station by road through my constituency—at the rate of up to 250 loads a week—rather than by rail, which would cause a minimum of noise and nuisance, and which is where, on environmental grounds, it rightly belongs?

The reason for the new methods of transport is the change of supplies from one set of coalfields to another, but I understand that talks have taken place and that assurances have been given about the use of a new route, on a trial basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in his forthcoming legislation on the reform of company law, he will consider taking powers to publish a code of practice in relation to directors' expenses and perquisites.

I am considering questions of directors' responsibilities in my review of company law.

Is it not worth recording the fact that the great majority of British companies act with restraint and responsibility on the matters to which this Question refers? Would not the publication of a code of conduct be helpful, so as to reduce the offences of the remaining few to a very small percentage?

Talks are now taking place with the CBI and others on this, but it is important to get the law right on disclosure. Under the present law, the 1948 Act requires disclosure of the aggregate of all directors' emoluments, while the 1967 Act requires disclosure of emoluments of chairmen or any highly-paid directors, though not on such a wide scale as the 1948 Act. These are matters that we shall bring into our White Paper on company law to see that full disclosure takes place.

If we are to have a capitalist system, are not these sorts of provision rather out of place? Are not Lonrho and Pergamon remarkable success stories in the system? Are not the methods of thrustful, aggressive and, above all, successful practice disclosed by their books—as, indeed, by Watergate—illustrative of the success of the system?

It has been a great relief to many of us to see the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has tried to restrain some of his hon. Friends from stopping the system.

When the Minister is undertaking this review, will he consider including the activities of consultants? After all, very often directors are and can be publicly known, and some of the things about which people have been complaining extend to consultants.

Yes, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even more important than the question of directors' perks is the question of the conflict of interest that arises where directors sit on so many boards, particularly those of financial institutions? Will he give his attention to that matter?

Yes, Sir.