asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Mr. Turkington, debt collector of Gallowgate, Glasgow, who was recently sentenced at Glasgow High Court to 12 months imprisonment for various fraudulent practices, is still a prisoner at Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow, or if he has been recently released?

This prisoner has been transferred to Edinburgh Prison, where he is now detained.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now prepared to consider Falkirk and Grange-mouth, with Stirlingshire, as probable areas of danger from air attack; and what steps he is prepared to take for the evacuation of children there?

At the present time a supplementary scheme of evacuation from the existing evacuation areas in Scotland is being put into operation. I regret that I cannot at present consider an extension of the existing areas, but I am keeping the position under review.

It may be inadvisable to discuss this matter in public, but will the Secretary of State be prepared to accept certain information which I have and consider it?

I am willing to consider any information which the hon. Member puts before me.

Will the Secretary of State take special care to see that the Wallace Monument is protected?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Scottish farmers consider the com pulsory insurance scheme against war risks to be impossible and financially disastrous for farmers, and that they desire that the scheme should be made voluntary; and will he take steps o meet this demand?

I am aware that dissatisfaction with the scheme in its original form was expressed by the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that it has been announced that certain important agricultural products are now to be excluded from the scope of the War Risks Insurance Act. Insurance for those products not covered by the exemption will be compulsory only if their total value on the farm at any one time exceeds £1,000.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the war risks insurance of stocks at 6 per cent. Per annum is a tax that is likely to ruin many businesses where valuable stocks are carried; and will he consider an amendment to allow contracting out and/or a reduction of the tax proportionate to the reduction of risks of air raids in those districts which are not evacuation areas?

My right hon. Friend has received representations from certain trades as to the effect of the commodity insurance scheme upon them, and these representations are receiving urgent consideration. As my right hon. Friend pointed out yesterday in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), it is a complete fallacy to assume that this charge represents 6 per cent. on the stock, since the actual additional cost depends upon the number of times the stock is turned over. As regards the second part of the question, in the view of the Government it is equitable that the cost of compulsory war risks insurance of stocks should be borne by the trading community as a whole. The right hon. and gallant Member's suggestion of a differentiation in favour of certain supposedly less vulnerable areas, if carried into effect, would operate to the disadvantage of persons carrying on business in thickly populated industrial areas where the difficulties are likely to be greatest.

With reference to the hon. and gallant Member's remarks that the Government's view is that this burden should be borne by the trading community as a whole, is he aware that the burden is being borne the consumers and not by the trading community?

I may say that many firms are not passing on the cost at all.

Is the Minister aware that there are some places where they do not turn the stock over more than once or twice in a year, and that this imposes a burden upon them? I have individual cases where they have dismissed hands in the shop owing to not being able to meet the expense.

I am aware that in certain cases the stock is turned over only once a year, but that is not the rule: it is rather the exception. If the hon. Member has any information to give me I shall be grateful to him.

Will exception be made in those cases which are not turning over the stock more than once a year?

Consideration is being given at the moment to certain cases.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that this is really causing a general rise in prices, and is having an inflationary effect when it is most important that prices should be stable?

I am well aware that in many cases it may be having a bad effect, but I have had many cases brought to my notice in which quite unjustifiably the whole cost of the 6 per cent. has been passed on when, in fact, the stock is being turned over three and four times a year. I would remind the hon. Member that the insurance is only one half per cent. per month and ought to be multiplied only by the number of months the stock is not turned over.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that this tax falls with special weight on the export trade which cannot raise prices?

Would it be possible to publish the names of the firms who are offending in this way and also the firms who are not?

What is happening at the present time is that if any cases are brought to our notice inquiry is made in order to verify the statement, and the hon. Member will understand that it is only in the last day or two that some of these cases have been brought to our notice. In every single instance inquiry is being made as to how much of the extra cost is attributable to war risks insurance.

Would it not be much better to abolish the whole scheme, which is an intolerable nuisance?

(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject of prices and the prevention of profiteering?

I must apologise to the House for the length of this answer.

Numerous instances have been brought to my notice, where the prices of various classes of goods have recently been raised; and immediate inquiry has been made. It is recognised that there are a number of cases where owing to various unavoidable causes such as the fall in sterling, the rise in world prices, difficulties of transport, war risk insurance and expenditure on air raid protection, there has been an increase in the cost of manufacture. It is, however, essential that even in such cases where some increase in prices may be justifiable and even inevitable the increase should be as small as possible and I am glad to say that I know a number of instances where firms are, in the national interest, not only strictly limiting any increase in price but even refraiing from making increases where they could be justified by a corresponding increase in cost. I am confident that this represents the attitude of the great majority of manufacturers and traders throughout the country.

On the other hand, I have evidence of cases where the increase of price would appear to bear little relation to any increase in cost. In particular, compulsory expenditure on war risk insurance and on air-raid protection has been made the excuse for price increases far exceeding these costs, if calculated on any reasonable basis. Such action is unfair to the community, harmful to the national cause and must be stopped.

To this end, in some cases, particularly in food stuffs, systems of price control have already been introduced: they form the most effective check to the activity of the profiteer and it is the Government's intention to extend their scope. Experience, however, shows that price control is liable to be ineffective and indeed harmful unless it covers an article through all stages of manufacture and great care must be taken that by the premature introduction of hastily conceived schemes, we do not add to the dislocation and consequent unemployment, which in any case is bound to attend the change over from peace to war conditions, and to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wakefield, referred yesterday. In the meantime very great assistance is being rendered by associations of manufacturers, who are discouraging any such action among their members and by associations of retailers and distributors, who are urging their members to refuse to recognise any unjustified price increase by their suppliers. I have every reason to hope that their action is already proving effective.

But despite all these precautions there may remain a small minority, who will attempt to profit from the national emergency. Such action is against the national interest and is unfair to the great majority of their competitors who are loyally co-operating with the Government. The Government feels that it is essential that they should be armed with powers to deal with such cases even though they earnestly hope that the good sense and national spirit already displayed by the great majority of the trading community will make their exercise unnecessary. They have accordingly decided to introduce measures aimed at the prevention of profiteering, and the precise form is now under consideration.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive reply, can he give any indication when the proposed legislation will be introduced?

I could not say yet, nor could I at the moment say exactly the form it will take, whether it will be by Statute or by regulation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a difficult question. We had considerable experience of a not altogether successful Act dealing with profiteering in the last war, and we want if we can to evolve something rather more effective.

In the meantime, where there are flagrant cases of profiteering proved to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will stern representations be made to the persons concerned?

We are following up every one of these cases. Where we are not satisfied with the replies, we are asking for the details in order to check the amount, and where we are satisfied that profiteering exists, we will certainly take the matter up with them, and I am also prepared to consider the question of publicity being given.

Will not my right hon. Friend make it retrospective, and where, for instance, a man sells at 7d. or 8d. sandbags which originally cost ¾d., will the right hon. Gentleman go back to the man who sold them to the retailer, and so on, right back to the root of the matter?

The legislation will be aimed at anyone who makes an excessive profit, whether he be producer, middleman or retailer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman rope them all in?

For once, the Government are in full sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's desire to regulate the whole community.

Will the legislation enable such parasites on the State to be arrested and tried as traitors to the State?

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether the proposed legislation will cover not only cases of profiteering in future, but cases that have already been discovered?

I will consider that. Hon. Members know, whatever their feelings may be, that there are very great objections to introducing retrospective legislation which involves penalty provisions.

Will my right hon. Friend answer my question whether the proposed legislation will ensure that such parasites on the State will be tried as traitors to the State?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of "parasite"?

I do not think that every case of profiteering by a small retailer could be tried as a case of treason. I think it would be preferable that they should be tried as a breach of regulations. The courts will be able to deal with them adequately.

In view of the very great hardship that is caused merely by the addition of even 1d. or ½d. on ordinary things, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite this legislation and regard this as being one of his most important tasks?

I do regard it as most important, and certainly I will expedite it to the greatest extent, but this is very difficult legislation to make effective, and I am anxious that the legislation should be not only speedy but effective.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with the money-lending parasite whose rates rose by 300 per cent. overnight?