§ Q3. Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make one Department responsible for both the manufacturing and service sectors of industry.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. BlakerIs the Prime Minister aware that Professor Reddaway's report on the distributive trades suggests that S.E.T. has increased productivity by putting people out of work? If this is a good idea, how is it that the Government also have something called the R.E.P. the effect of which is calculated to be precisely the opposite?
§ The Prime MinisterThe R.E.P., of course, refers to development areas and has played a very big part in the improvement of the situation with regard to getting new factories started in development areas. On the general question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I have always felt that there is a very strong case for what he suggests—I am talking about his main Question. It was seriously considered before the changes in the machinery of Government were announced in the House last October. But, on balance, I fell that, however desirable in theory, it would not make for better working of the administrative machine. We have now most industries in one Department and the services for industry and responsibility for most of the invisible services in the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterMight not one of the advantages of my hon. Friend's proposal be to end the discrimination against the service industries, which contribute so much to our balance of payments, as a result of the operation of S.E.T.?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a matter which has been debated when the House has been considering Finance Bills and, of course, I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement. We are always hearing from 1114 the right hon. Gentleman about discrimination against services. He will be glad to have seen from the figures published yesterday that our invisible services, even after allowing for overseas military expenditure and the rest, improved their tally from £126 million in 1964 to £524 million in 1969.