asked the Secretary of State for Trade and industry if, in view of the increasing expense and inconvenience imposed on other public utilities in taking counter safety measures and the loss of life already brought about in electricity supply by the leakage of natural gas, he will have immediate conversations with the Gas Corporation on the situation, with a view to the exercise of his powers to give a general direction to the industry.

No, Sir. The corporation has already taken steps to reduce leakages, to improve liaison with other public utilities and to attend promptly to reported leaks.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his Department has a direct responsibility for safety in these matters and that, although the Opposition rightly suggested during the passage of the Gas Bill a short time ago that an absolute liability should be placed upon the British Gas Corporation, there has now been loss of life, in spite of that warning? How much longer will the corporation continue pumping dry gas into a network designed in some cases 100 years ago for wet gas?

I have said several times that my Department realises that we have a great responsibility here. We still believe that absolute liability would not be the answer, because a number of accidents may arise which have nothing to do with the British Gas Corporation. Moreover, I know from investigations I have made that the corporation is very much up to date in trying to ensure that its main line and feeder line service is as modernised as possible.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the passage of the Bill, he said he would keep this matter under review. In view of the alarming circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend, will he now consider setting up a separate study, independent of the British Gas Corporation, so that we may know the full facts of the situation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has already been an inquiry on the matter of gas coming from the North Sea. If the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has specific new facts which he wishes to put to me, I shall be glad to have them, but I must say that the situation is not helped by accusations that North Sea gas is odourless when pumped out. This is quite untrue, since a special additive is put in so that it may be sensed by everybody dealing with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the fact that the building societies have not reduced mortgage interest rates at a time when record sums have been invested, he will now refer the building societies to the Monopolies Commission.

Mortgage interest rates are at present under discussion between the Departments concerned and representatives of the building societies. A reference to the Monopolies Commission would not be justified at present.

Does not the Minister realise that the greedy and irresponsible attitude of the building societies has shaken public confidence in them, and that there should be an inquiry? Is he aware that the astronomical increase in house prices which we had in 1971 and 1972 was largely due to what the building societies did in indiscriminately making loans for mortgages on property which was not worth it?

I do not accept the general and wide-ranging nature of the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The rate for investment which the Building Societies Association last recommended was that which it judged necessary to attract sufficient sums to finance home ownership. As I have said, the matter is under discussion by my right hon. Friends with the Building Societies Association.

Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that young married couples find extreme difficulty in obtaining mortgages? Could not the Government look into the possibility of second mortgage schemes for newly married couples?

The Government are certainly concerned to see an expansion of home ownership by young married couples. I shall draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Is the building society rate to go up to 10 per cent.? If it is, does not that show the completely artificial and wasteful nature of the so-called subsidy over the last three months?

It would be quite wrong for anyone to assume the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. As I have said, the matter is under discussion by my right hon. Friends and the Building Societies Association.

Is it not a fact that the building societies are not a monopoly and neither' are they profit-making, so quite what the hon. Gentleman wants to investigate one does not know; but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be better if the Government left the building societies alone to balance out their receipts and their payments as they think fit?

There are obvious reasons why the matter I have mentioned should be discussed by the Government with the Building Societies Association. The other matters to which my hon. Friend refers are among those which I have borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to enable him to control the prices charged in duty-free shops at airports and on ships.

No, Sir.

Are not very large profits being made by these organisations—for example, 140 per cent. being considered a normal profit on a bottle of Scotch whisky at duty-free shops? Is it not time that the travelling public were excluded from this scandalous profiteering?

The Monopolies Commission's report on the supply of these goods in cross-Channel ferries is awaited. I should want further evidence beyond that produced by the hon. Gentleman about the level of profiteering, and if he has any facts I shall be only too pleased to receive them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some duty-free shops, notably one at Hamburg airport, tell travellers that they are permitted to bring in more duty-free goods than the entitlement actually allows and that many people, believing what the shops say, enter the country with goods on which they subsequently have to pay duty?

I thank my hon. Friend for the question but she will realise that I have no control over what happens in Hamburg. Perhaps the Press will draw this practice to the attention of travellers.

Is the Minister aware that the EEC Commission is programming to abolish duty-free goods and the duty-free shops at airports and on ships? What is the Government's attitude towards that?

That is an entirely different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce measures to comply with the Consumer Protection Charter adopted by the Council of Europe on 28th May 1973.

The Government are in general accord with the spirit of this charter, which is being considered by the Committee of Ministers of the Council. In many respects the principles of the charter are already embodied in United Kingdom legislation.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay special attention to that article of the charter which refers to the minimum standards of safety in consumer products? In view of the startling rise in the number of children who have been treated in hospital in England and Wales for injuries from ordinary household products, will he consider bringing forward labelling regulations? I have been requesting this for some time. Will he say how much longer the talks on the EEC draft directive are likely to continue?

I had anticipated that this would have been the provision with which my hon. Friend was particularly concerned, because I know of her close and persistent interest in the subject. She appreciates, of course, that this is the subject of the EEC directive, and the implications of that and the way in which it can be fitted into the United Kingdom scene are being studied not merely by the Government but by consumer and trade organisations too.

Will the Minister urge that detailed information such as antecedent characteristics should be provided to the consumer under Article B(6) of the charter? This means, or should mean, that the origin of a product such as the shoes now produced for Dunlop in Taiwan, Spain and Pakistan—where cheap labour is used—should be taken into consideration. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this sort of thing is causing redundancy among the Dunlop workers in this country? While waiting for the charter, is he prepared to take steps to deal with the situation now?

The point about origin marking of goods is outside the scope of the charter, which is concerned with information which is of guidance to the consumer for the consumption of the product. There are already many regulations dealing with this matter.

Read the charter.

I have read the charter. I have it here. I have taken account of the hon. Member's point, which is not covered by the original Question.

The Minister said that the Government were in general agreement with the charter. Will he specify where they are in disagreement with it?

There are no identifiable areas which I should like to mention. The Government agree with the spirit of the charter, but it covers a wide range of detailed matters which must be looked at on their merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will institute a publicity campaign to advise buyers of their rights under the sale of goods legislation and of the fact that certain so-called guarantees and warranties in consumer contracts made on or after, but not before, 18th May 1973 are void.

Frequent references to these matters have been made in all the media of publicity and a pamphlet has recently been published on the rights given to consumers by the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. We have sought to make it clear that exclusion clauses in consumer contracts of sales of goods or in misleading "warranties" or "guarantees" are void.

Is the Minister aware that most people do not read his pamphlets and have no idea whether or not a clause is void. Is he also aware that the majority of manufacturers of radios, televisions, electrical goods and other products have not changed their guarantees or warranties? Will he make it illegal to foist these misleading and void documents upon the unsuspecting public?

I am aware that we must use every possible means of making such matters known and understood. I have taken part in a number of broadcasts about the legislation, as has the hon. and learned Gentleman on at least one occasion. I am prepared to use every method, including this Question Time, to acquaint people with the effects of the legislation. My Department is in consultation with a number of trade associations, which are successfully advising their members to change their documents to eliminate misleading exclusion clauses. I have also made it clear in speeches on a number of occasions that, if exclusion clauses that are made void by the statute continue to be included, it will be a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider at an early stage whether additional provision should be made to ban the use of such exclusion clauses.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the excellent exposition which appeared in Which? magazine telling consumers of their new rights under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act should be blown up to poster size and exhibited in citizens' advice bureaux and town halls pending the enactment of the Fair Trading Bill, when the Director General himself will be able to publicise such things?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. Copies of the pamphlet produced to explain the Act have already been supplied to citizens' advice bureaux.

Has the Minister considered the advisability of making illegal the insertion of exclusion clauses, under heavy penalties?

I have already considered that, as did the Law Commission when it prepared its report. It concluded that to make them illegal in general terms would not be acceptable, because some contracts deal with business contracts and consumer contracts in the same form. For that reason, it did not recommend what the hon. Gentleman suggests. But, as I have already made clear, it will be for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider proposing regulations to outlaw and prohibit the use of invalid exclusion clauses if traders and manufacturers do not respond to the provisions of the present legislation.

Is not the Minister aware that too many manufacturers are still issuing "phoney" guarantees in the hope that they can mislead the public into thinking that their rights are less than they are? Does he accept that the best publicity would be a series of test cases? The Press could ensure that adequate publicity was given to them. How soon does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to introduce parallel legislation to extend protection from exclusion clauses to the service sector?

I am not in control of whether and when test cases can be brought on the matter. I have made clear—and I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me a further opportunity to make clear this afternoon—that it will be for the Director General to consider whether the continued inclusion of such clauses should be proscribed by regulations under the Fair Trading Bill. Comparable provisions in respect of the supply of services are being considered by the Law Commission, and I know how urgently the House wants that matter to be completed. I have said that its recommendations are not likely to be available before the end of the year. I have also said that when they are available the Government will give them the most urgent consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now grant intermediate status to North Staffordshire.

I am not convinced of the need for this. Unemployment is below the national average and falling.

A powerful case can be made for granting intermediate status to North Staffordshire, not on the grounds of unemployment, which should not be the only criterion, but because of the contraction of the main industries there. In the last 10 years the pottery industry has lost 10,000 men and mining 8,500, and now a steelworks may close which will mean the loss of 2,000 jobs. Will the Minister do what he can to stop the rot and bring industrial vitality back to North Staffordshire?

Unemployment cannot be disregarded, and neither can the increase in the number of vacancies. The indications are that a substantial fall in unemployment in North Staffordshire and a great increase in vacancies—they are more or less equal at the moment—should take place. North Staffordshire is well placed to absorb the changes which are happening in its basic industries.

Will the Minister say whether the decision to grant intermediate status of the kind sought by my hon. Friend lies solely within the competence of the Government, or does it require the assent of the European Commission?

As I understand it, the Government are perfectly entitled to make their decision about boundaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reduction in electric power station construction programmes there will be for the five years 1974–78, inclusive, or other convenient period, as part of the reduction in expenditure on nationalised industries, announced recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; what danger of power cuts will thereby be engendered and what further reduction in the demand for coal will be occasioned; and whether he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the recently-announced reduction in capital expenditure by the nationalised industries in 1974–75 should not affect the power station construction programmes of the CEGB.

As the prognosis for the next five to seven years shows that there will be a declining supply of petroleum fuels and an increased demand for coal, has my hon. Friend considered the prospect of increasing the number of coal-fired power stations, notably in the North-East and the North of England, and of reducing the number of oil-fired stations?

That is a slightly different question, but proposals on the fuelling of power stations are a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, which has applied for two new stations.

Will the Minister tell us why only some nationalised industries and public authorities are told what to do by the Government? Will he explain why British Railways are told to sell massive areas of land to the property speculators, and why local authorities are told by the Government to increase rents when they do not want to do so, whereas on a relatively small matter like the burning of coal the CEGB cannot be told to use solid fuel in new power stations?

Two matters arise. The CEGB would not consider the fuelling of power stations a relatively small matter.

The electrical manufacturing industry has to survive. As it depends upon new orders, when will my hon. Friend the Minister authorise the construction of Littlebrook and Killingholme and Drax power stations, for which it is essential to give the go-ahead?

My hon. Friend is confusing one power station with two. The Littlebrook and Killingholme power stations are now before my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and a decision will be made in order to ensure that there is no delay in ordering.

If the economy is booming as the Government say, we shall need far more power stations in the future. Therefore, why should there be this hint that there are to be restrictions on the capital expenditure of nationalised industries, including electricity supply?

The hon. Member did not hear my original answer. There will be no reduction in capital cost terms of the CEGB's future generating capacity.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's delay in announcing the review of power station policy is leaving the field wide open to the ridiculous propaganda of Mr. Arthur Hawkins of the CEGB? Why does he not put an end to this by giving the go-ahead for Drax B and West Burton to be coal-fired? If the Government do not have the powers for this, why do they not take them?

As the hon. Member knows, the fuelling of Drax B is not a question which is before the Minister. We are considering Killingholme and Little-brook and a decision there will be made in sufficient time to ensure that there is no delay in ordering.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the present position regarding the establishment of a Concorde simulator in Great Britain.

The most appropriate arrangements for simulator training facilities are being carefully examined, and I hope that the position will be resolved shortly.

As the only alternative to a simulator is the training of crews on actual aircraft, which would be much more expensive, and as the French simulator industry lacks both experience and expertise, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will continue to fight for the simulator to be sited in the United Kingdom and that he will continue to give his unstinted support to the joint project put forward by the two British firms which are pre-eminent in the field?

I am aware of the joint project which has been put forward by Redifon and Link-Miles, and I am certainly aware of the geographical attraction of siting a simulator in this country. I assure my hon. Friend that both these matters will be carefully taken into account when we reach our decision.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 7th August last year, in a parliamentary answer, I was given a specific assurance by the Under-Secretary that the simulator would be situated in Britain? What has changed since then, and why has that decision apparently now been brought into question?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. He was given exactly that assurance. We obviously have to bear in mind the rate of sales and the facilities and capacity of the simulator, and we are examining the situation in the light of a new proposal which has been put forward since that date.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not simply a matter of the geographical attraction of where the simulator is finally sited but the technical attraction for whichever country's industry, in this extremely important field, is to build it? Will he please put some push into pushing forward our contenders?

We have kept closely in touch with the manufacturers on the matter. I am very much aware of the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to discuss the progress of Concorde with the French Ministers concerned.

I expect my next meeting with the French Minister of Transport about Concorde to be in the autumn.

Are the French Government pressing for an immediate production slow-down? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he is aware of the difficulty which we would face in selling to British taxpayers the proposition that they should pay for a single production line in France?

There is no pressure from the French Government on any of the matters which my hon. Friend raises. We shall discuss in the autumn any matter relevant to the Concorde programme.

If the hon. Gentleman is to maintain two production lines—one in this country and one in France—as there are no firm orders, with the exception of the French order, what will he do with the aircraft? Even BOAC says that it will not take the aircraft with its present noise levels. What is the use of producing aircraft if they cannot be sold?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that BOAC has said no such thing, and it is for the Governments concerned— [Interruption.] It is important that we should clear up this matter. BOAC has said nothing of the sort. The rumour in the Press that it had was promptly denied by BOAC the next day.

Is BOAC buying it?

It is buying it. It is very important that we should maintain a balance between the rate of production and the orders we have for the aircraft at any given time.

Will the Minister confirm that the United States FAA administrator recently said that he expects the United States to confirm the certificate of airworthiness at the same time as the British and French? I believe that we are 85 per cent. towards that goal and that the United States has no intention of bringing forward discriminatory legislation against supersonic aircraft and Concorde. When the Minister meets his counterpart in France, will he discuss future development of Concorde and British participation in that development?

Certainly the last statement which I saw from the FAA in America was extremely helpful to the general prospects of Concorde. In any conversations we have with the French Government, which are likely to take place in the autumn, the question of British participation will be fully to the fore.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now take steps to ensure that all pre-packed foods and other goods are sold in prescribed standardised quantities.

My right hon. and learned Friend told the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 13th February that the Government add to the list of prepacked foods sold in prescribed quantities whenever we are satisfied that it is desirable to do so.—[Vol. 850, c. 329–30.]

Does not my hon. Friend recognise that sale in prescribed standardised quantities is desirable for all such goods, and that we should like to see a little quicker action than we have seen hitherto?

We discussed the matter in somewhat greater detail when considering the Weights and Measures (Unit Pricing) Bill only last week, when I think my hon. Friend agreed that certain goods lend themselves to standard packaging and others perhaps to unit pricing. Before we go ahead with standard packaging there needs to be the most extensive consultation with the manufacturers to ensure that cans and packages can be introduced in the manner and with the presentation that my hon. Friend would want. That is continuing.

Is the Minister aware that there must now be abundant evi- dence of the need for new legislation? Will he also consider, in relation both to this Question and to the points raised in Question No. 10, having conversations with the Secretary of State for the Environment to see how local authorities can help, and how they can be assisted in appointing consumer protection officers and setting up consumer protection offices?

I do not accept that there is any need for new legislation. The Government are carrying out extensive consultations for consumer protection advice centres to be much more widely spread throughout the country. I hope that that will be welcomed by the Opposition.

I am sure the Minister realises that the public are as concerned about the safety of prepacked foods as they are about quantity. Will he, as a matter of urgency, investigate with the Minister of Agriculture the report by the Halesowen Public Health Department and the report "Monitoring of Foodstuff for Heavy Metals", which allege that the lead content of certain canned fruits is five times as high as the statutory limit, and the even more disturbing allegation that certain canned baby foods have an abnormally high lead content?

The safety of foods is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I am certain that both he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are only too concerned to ensure that any suggestions that the lead content is dangerous are kept under the closest review, so that such danger is not allowed to occur.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British shoe manufacturers have closed down each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that the information is not available because no separate records are kept of closures in the footwear industry. There has been some rationalisation and changes of ownership. Production in the footwear industry is currently running at a high level.

Is the Minister aware that I have a list of 15 firms which went out of business last year involving approximately 3,000 redundancies? That is a matter of very great concern, especially as many of the smaller firms which have been made over or which have gone bankrupt catered for the rather unusual sizes which are required and which the shoe chains do not bother with. Clearly this is a matter for the consumer as well.

As regards the rundown in the industry, it is true that employment in the industry has been diminishing since 1966—a substanial amount was lost during the period of the previous administration—but this has mostly been due to rationalisation. [Interruption.] Most of the people who have been made redundant have found alternative employment or it has been a case of natural wastage. Production in the shoe industry so far this year is running well ahead of the level of 1970 and import growth has eased considerably. In our discussions with the industry it was made clear to us that the industry welcomed our entry into Europe, which has been a great advantage to it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I mishear the Minister? Did he say that he had no figures and could not give them? It seems that he is comparing the present situation with what happened when the previous administration were in office? Has he the figures or has he not?

That is not a point of order.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is another danger facing the shoe industry? In my constituency there may be short-time working if nothing is done about shortage of PVC. Is my hon. Friend aware that that shortage is being exploited and exacerbated by the manufacturers who are gambling on yet another commodity market?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. There are certain difficulties about shortages in that respect which affect the whole of industry and not only the footwear industry. That is a separate matter which the Government are considering carefully.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in cities such as Leicester, which depend greatly on the shoe industry, the words "rationalisation" and "natural wastage" mean nothing to the people who are thrown out of work through closures? What is he prepared to do to make more and not fewer jobs in these industries?

I should have thought that the evidence shows quite clearly that in Leicester there has been a substantial fall in the unemployment figures. In fact, the figures are well below the national average. Further, there has been a great increase in the number of vacancies in Leicester.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being undertaken to deal with the problem of industry leaving the West Middlesex and London area; and if he will make a statement.

Where manufacturing capacity has closed, alternative employment is readily available and the rate of unemployment is one of the lowest in the country.

The hon. Gentleman must know that that is not a particularly satisfactory answer. He must be aware that literally thousands of skilled craftsmen who cannot be employed in the skills they have learnt are now employed in unskilled labour. That is why the unemployment figures are kept down. Before long the West Middlesex area, with the advent of more and more warehouses, will be a depository for depositories. Will the hon. Gentleman take a little peep into the future and try to stop this appalling drift?

It is unrealistic to try to present the West Middlesex area as being in some way depressed. The fact is that London is still the largest manufacturing area in Britain. In West Middlesex alone, the number of notified vacancies is 10,600 and in the Middlesex County Times last week there were 14½ pages of advertisements for vacancies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the part of West Middlesex which I have the honour to represent there is a serious shortage of labour? The position is that essential services such as buses have to be curtailed. Will he take no notice of the foolish policies of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), which if carried out would very much worsen the housing shortage in the area?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will do so as well.

I shall debate the matter publicly with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) at any time.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must know better than that. Does he know that the substance of the disquiet is the misuse of skilled labour? Is he aware that many of the workers concerned came to the area during times of depression in the North and in South Wales and that they are exceedingly apprehensive? The concern, unlike that which seems to be exhibited today, is widespread. That is evidenced by the representations being made by both Labour and Conservative members of the Greater London Council.

I can understand the anxiety of anyone who has to change his job. It is one thing to have to change one's job when there are ample employment opportunities but quite different when in other parts of the country there may not be a job at all. I should have thought that what the hon. Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) want to do is contrary to regional policies which both sides of the House wish to see pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a general direction to gas boards that no person employed in giving advice to consumers on changeover to natural gas shall be in any way remunerated on a commission basis for equipment sold.

Whilst this is a matter for the British Gas Corporation, I can inform my hon. Friend that in only one of the 12 regions is this practice carried on.

Which region, and will it stop very soon?

It is the North Thames region. This is a matter for commercial consideration, and there must be the strictest discipline in trying to ensure that there is no malpractice

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in total value of United Kingdom imports from the rest of the EEC, and of United Kingdom exports to the rest of the EEC, respectively, in the first five months of 1973; and what was the visible trade balance between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EEC during this period.

Between the first five months of 1972 and 1973, 39 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively. Figures of the visible balance for areas are prepared on an annual basis only.

Do not the figures show that our imports from the EEC are exceeding our exports to the EEC by about £80 million a month and that that sum is approximately equal to our present balance of payments deficit?

Of course, there has been an adverse balance of payments situation for some time. What is encouraging is the accelerating rate at which we are exporting to Common Market countries, which represents an increase of nearly 30 per cent. During the period concerned the British economy, in terms of output, has been expanding faster than that of all but one of the other eight. That has meant a large importation of machinery.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he now expects to find a tenant for the advance factory at Lochlands, Falkirk.

An application is being considered.

It is only one in a long list of applications which has been considered for this factory. The hon. Gentleman is aware from correspondence which has passed between us that there is grave apprehension on the part of Falkirk Town Council and the unemployed in Falkirk. Is he aware that it is thought that the Department of Trade and Industry is playing tricks with the factory by increasing the square foot rental of Lochlands factory and reducing the rental of other factories in Scotland so as to take the industries which might be interested in the Lochlands factory away from Loch-lands to other factories?

I assure the hon. Gentleman—I hoped that I had done so in our correspondence—that that is not true. Rents must automatically be reviewed periodically. It is the wish of my officials in Scotland and myself to work as closely as possible with the local authorities to try to ensure that the factory is occupied. I have confidence that we shall succeed in doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what Act he has powers in relation to proposed mergers of public companies after the proposals have been abandoned by the boards of the companies concerned.

If a proposed merger is abandoned after reference to the Monopolies Commission for investigation, the commission is required, under Section 6(7) of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965, to lay the reference aside if it appears to it that the proposals have been abandoned, and if the Department consents. However, if required by the Department, the commission has to furnish such information as the Department may require as to the results until then of its investigation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, in view of what he has said about his powers, that he should regret going as far as he did on 20th June in pursuing a post mortem on the wild goose chase which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) raised after the proposed merger of Slater Walker and Hill Samuel? Does he agree that it is time that this House paid more attention to the matters over which it should have and has control and less attention to those matters over which it has no control, whether it be abortive mergers, psychedelic advertisements on buses or tennis players who do not play tennis?

I am glad to think that some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend are outside my responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that significant mergers do not take place without adequate consideration of possible effects on the public interest and that it does not bear on a proposed merger which has been abandoned.

When the Slater Walker and Hill Samuel merger came to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for consideration, he extracted assurances from the parties involved which he held to be in the public interest. Is he saying that, because that wild goose became a lame duck, those requirements are no longer necessary in the public interest? If so, is that altogether a satisfactory state of affairs?

I know that some commentators have concluded from the fact that those conditions ceased to be relevant, because the merger did not go ahead, that there was some general change in the Government's view about such matters. I can only say that the particular conditions, for example, in relation to warehousing are matters which are under consideration and that the House will have to await publication of the Government's proposals for company law reform.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm or deny a report in the Evening News last week that the Government intend to make a statement clarifying the guidelines under which references are made to the commission? Is he aware that there is considerable confusion about the criteria?

The question of the criteria applied to references to the commission was the subject of statements by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State concerned with industrial development before Christmas and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State concerned with industrial and consumer affairs during the Committee stage of the Fair Trading Bill. There is no intention at present to add to those statements.

Is the Minister aware that, following his refusal to investigate the circumstances surrounding share dealings in Slater Walker and Hill Samuel, I wrote to the City Take-over Panel? The panel said that it could do nothing and referred me to the Stock Exchange. I wrote to the Stock Exchange Council, which was unable to say what dealings had taken place or at what time before or after the announcement to merge. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the public what safeguards they have against unscrupulous manipulators if he will do nothing, if the Stock Exchange Council does not know what is going on and if the City Take-over Panel will do nothing?

The hon. Gentleman postulates the premise of unscrupulous manipulation. He is aware of the powers which my right hon. Friend and I have under the Companies Acts. If he has any further information in relation to the transactions, I shall be glad to receive it.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the criteria in respect of the departmental consent referred to by him in his initial answer to the Question?

I would need notice before giving the precise criteria, but I believe that. once a merger has been abandoned, it is unusual for the Department not to consent to withdrawal of the reference.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will hold urgent discussions with the travel and tour operators' industry on the creation of a draft code of conduct for consumer protection in advance of the appointment of a Director General of Fair Trading.

The Association of British Travel Agents already operates a code of conduct which includes provisions relating to conduct between its members and the public.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that answer might be regarded as a little complacent, which is extremely uncharacteristic of him? The situation is urgent. Does he agree that many thousands of holidaymakers are seriously disadvantaged and are in considerable difficulty as a result of the exchange crisis, but that there are also less immediate problems, such as the premature cancellation of holidays? Does he not feel that it is time to have more fundamental discussions with the industry in advance of the Director General's appointment?

As I have already pointed out, the association has a code of conduct dealing in particular with the point raised by my hon. Friend, including the alteration of holiday bookings already made. In addition, an amendment to the Fair Trading Bill which is under discussion in another place today will give the Director General a specific and identifiable responsibility for the promotion of codes of conduct of this kind.

As the Minister will not accede to the request to act before the Fair Trading Bill becomes law, while it is still going through the House will he consider investigating, with a view possibly to taking legal action, the activities revealed in the Sunday Times and Daily Mirror of a pyramid sales firm called Memory World which sells its products at five times the normal market price on the cruelly fraudulent and medically discredited ground that they will prevent breast cancer?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise directly out of that which is before the House, but investigations are being made into some of the claims made by the company concerned to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to limit imports of Japanese-made colour television sets into the United Kingdom.

The Japanese authorities are well aware that I have been watching the position closely and that I hope the exchanges between the two industries that are now taking place will prevent the deterioration in the situation which would oblige me to take action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Japanese television industry is extremely efficient, there is the suspicion that it is benefiting from subsidised credit and subsidised promotional costs? Is he further aware that the stocks of colour television sets in this country are very high, that the number could reach 600,000 by the end of the year and that this is a threat to the viability of the industry in this country? Other countries have taken steps to restrict imports. Should we not do so before our industry is endangered?

I am aware of the potential dangers, and that is why talks are taking place. Under the international agreements to which we subscribe, restrictions can be imposed if imports cause or threaten injury to the domestic industry. We are watching the situation very closely.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a question not only of Japanese-made imports but of Japanese-designed sets made by Japanese subsidiaries in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? This matter is causing grave concern to those of us representing constituencies which have greatly profited from the recent boom in colour television set manufacture.

We are in close contact with the industry. Talks are taking place between the Japanese industry and our own.

The talks should come to a quick conclusion, because it is not just a question of colour television sets. According to the May figures, we exported £25·7 million worth of goods to Japan but Japan exported to us £39·2 million worth in one month—a 50 per cent. balance of payments surplus—and that figure was 97 per cent. higher than the figure for May of last year. What are the Government doing to rectify this big trade imbalance?

The volume of our exports to Japan is rising very fast due to Japan relaxing a lot of restrictions. In replying to a Question when the right hon. Gentleman was not present, I pointed out that exports to Japan have increased by 55 per cent. for the first five months of this year. There is an important two-way balance of trade. We have a very considerable surplus with the Japanese on invisible exports. However, we made it clear to the Japanese Government that we shall not have an industry like the television set industry ruined by imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of beer sales go through managed public houses; and what was the figure five years ago.

The latest available estimate shows that in September 1972, of the total beer sold through retail outlets owned by brewers, less than 45 per cent. was sold through managed houses. The corresponding figure for the last quarter of 1967 was 40 per cent.

The Under-Secretary has been quoting figures from the Brewers Society showing that the percentage of public houses going over to management has not increased significantly in recent years. However, is not the figure that the Minister has quoted this afternoon far more significant in the sense that the brewers are taking over the best public houses and leaving the others to the tenants? As the brewers already have the manufacturing and the wholesaling profits, is it a fair trading practice that they should grab the retailing profits as well?

The figures I have given have to be looked at alongside the figures for the number of managed houses and tenanted houses that my hon. Friend has given the House. The general subject of the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman I propose to discuss shortly with the brewers, and I intend also to arrange a meeting to discuss it with representatives of the licensed victuallers.

When will the Government do something about the Erroll Report, which goes to the root of the matter and about which they have taken no action whatever?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Is not the Minister aware that, as the increase in managed pubs becomes more evident and as the licensed victuallers are phased out, the traditional British pub is being destroyed, and that a manager has no interest in the darts club, the angling club or similar social community organisations that use public houses, which in some areas are the centre of community activities which are now being denied? Is it not time that he impressed on the Brewers Society the need for an examination of the adverse social aspects of this change?

It would not be right to conclude that all the consequences of the change are adverse in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It should be borne in mind that 74·9 per cent. of outlets are still tenanted. However, I will certainly bear in mind the points that have been made in any discussions I have about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he has sent to the letter from the hon. Member for Bothwell concerning the factory of Ranco Motors Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

A reply to the letter of 20th June from the hon. Member was sent on 4th July.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. The factory owned by Ranco Motors Ltd. at one time employed 1,700 people and the firm had received all the appropriate Government grants. When it stood off the workers and closed the factory, the firm made 500 workers redundant. Government grants have been given in respect of the new factory in Livingston, now employing close on 200 people—or it soon will be. The company itself has categorically stated that the workers from my constituency who have been made redundant were the finest in the country and trained to do the job, although they have now been thrown on the scrap heap. Many of the workers at Livingston, however, are having to be retrained. Is not all this a gross misuse of public money?

The company's decision to go from one specific development area to another, namely Livingston, was made on commercial grounds and I do not think that the Government ought to interfere with that—it is within the same special development area. I am advised that no special assistance has been given to the company that is not available to any other company. I accept that this was a first-class work force, but of those made redundant only four men and 35 women are still registered as unemployed, and as vacancies have increased by 200 per cent. it should be possible to get them placed very soon.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the consumption of oil by the CEGB for each of the last five years.

The figures are as follows:

What is the amount of coal consumed by the power stations? Is it true that there has been a reduction in that amount over the past three years? Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that on 1st June the Prime Minister said that the CEGB would be able to burn all the coal likely to be produced by pits in this country? Is he aware that stocks are growing and that 35 million tons of coal are now in stock? When are we to make certain that the coal mining industry is made fully aware of the Government's policy? Why cannot we have coal-fired power stations? Why cannot new pits be sunk?

Offhand, I cannot give the five-year figures, but I will certainly send them to the hon. Gentleman. Only about 20 per cent. of the CEGB current capacity is oil-fired and 70 per cent. is coal fired. That ensures that there is reasonable flexibility. The CEGB considers it necessary to have a proper balance of all forms of firing.

I endorse the wisdom of my hon. Friend's reply, but will he now confirm that all available coal in the foreseeable future—that is, in the next few years—will be available for burning under power station boilers and that the CEGB will not resort to oil fuel unless that is absolutely necessary?

I do not have to point out to my hon. Friend that the decision must rest on the comparative prices of the fuels.

As we have today heard allegations that the CEGB is pretty bloody-minded about coal-fired power stations, would it not help the CEGB to decide about oil if the Minister were to make a statement about the information. now filtering through, that the landing of North Sea oil will be behind schedule, mainly because of technological difficulties?

At the moment there is no need for any slow-up in the landing of North Sea oil. The CEGB certainly takes the national interest into account, and, the Government when they are reviewing any application, of course regard the national interest as absolutely overriding.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on Government aid for the shipbuilding industry.

Aid to the shipbuilding industry is available under different sections of the Industry Act 1972, and totalled £21·2 million in the financial year 1972–73.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are awaiting the Booz-Allen Report? Would he at least say whether the Government accept its main contention, namely, that to be fully competitive the British shipbuilding industry must have a high level of capital support? He has spoken of the Industry Act 1972, but does he not realise that that is not sufficiently specific to give the industry confidence?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minster for Industrial Development made a statement on this subject when he pointed out that already a substantial number of the figures in the Booz-Allen Report had been shown not to apply in the short term because of the big increases in orders. We are now discussing the report with the unions and with the industry itself to ascertain what would be a sensible policy for the future.

Is my right hon. Friend now able to say when the Government will have made up their minds about the Booz-Allen Report? Will he remember that the shipbuilders will want a debate in the House before any decisions are implemented by his Department? May we have that pledge, which is important?

A debate is a subject for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the two main items of the Booz-Allen Report were the lateness of deliveries and, even more significant, the inefficiency of the industry's management?

I am pleased to say that there has been a substantial improvement in both management and industrial relations in a number of major yards. The order books for almost every major yard are incredibly better than they have been for years, but it is vital that these ships should be delivered on time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning the revised code for the guidance of the Price Commission that is planned for the autumn, in the light of the latest evidence of prevailing trends in domestic prices and profit margins and the overall level of demand in the economy.

The latest economic indicators suggest that the economy is growing in line with the Budget forecasts. I am not yet ready to make a statement concerning any revision of the code for the autumn.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the way the Price Commission is interpreting the current code? Notwithstanding his reluctance to anticipate any statement concerning phase 3 in the autumn, can he none the less take this opportunity to say whether he expects the autumn code for prices to be more relaxed or more stringent?

As was explained to the House at the time the code was adopted, we certainly need time to see whether it is likely to need any change. It has been working for only two months. It is worth noting that during that period only one-third of the applications have been approved in full by the Price Commission. Of the remaining 162 dealt with up to the end of June nearly two-thirds were either approved in reduced form or withdrawn after scrutiny by the commission.

Is the Minister aware that it is not the prices in phase 3 which is now concerning the community but those in phase 2? Is he aware that with a rapid increase in prices, many of them authorised by the commission, with wages rigidly controlled, with a crisis in living standards for people affected, and the fresh impetus to rising prices given by a fall in the value of the pound, the Government must make clear their policy for price control during phase 2? When are we to debate the Price Commission report with that in mind?

The Price Commission report will be available for discussion no doubt once it has been published. What needs to be fully understood is the extent to which the commission is exercising a firm and effective control in preventing prices being increased as far as they would otherwise be in the light of changing costs of commodities entering this country.

How can any code lay down general principles for deciding in advance which prices should rise and by how much and which should fall and by how much?

A code can, as this code does, indicate to the commission which performs the task the extent to which costs which bear upon prices should or should not be passed through. Such a code can and does have a significant effect upon price levels.