asked the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to select matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission for investigation.

I expect to have chosen two further matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission by the latter part of the summer.

Should I be in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman if one of those two matters may be the problem of car accessories?

I told the hon. Lady previously that that is one of the matters which I have in mind, but I should not like to prejudge the issue at this stage.

Is consideration being given to the possibility of putting under the purview of the Monopolies Commission any producer marketing board that may be re-established in full force in the months to come?

That raises a wider issue that, I think, may require legislation.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the very urgent problem of monopoly in housing materials such as sanitary ware, asbestos, lead piping?

I shall certainly bear in mind that and other suggestions that have been put before me, but I think it would be unwise to announce, before my decision at the end of the summer, just which ones I shall refer to the Commission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of the components of a cathode ray tube for a television set is between 3s. and 4s., and that when that is retailed in the shops the cost is about £15? Does he not think that that is a matter that he ought to consider for the list he is drawing up?

asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to refer the distribution of chemists' goods to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission for investigation.

I will bear this in mind when further references to the Monopolies Commission are selected.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is over two years since this subject was first suggested to the Monopolies Commission as a suitable one for investigation and that there are many wholesale chemists who are suffering from the effects of the operation of that monopoly? Is he further aware that I could supply him with particulars of at least one firm in Northern Ireland which cannot deal in these goods because it is denied membership of the Chemists' Federation, although the vast majority of retail chemists in Northern Ireland are in favour of that firm being able to compete in that field?

Hale asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what industries he proposes to refer for consideration by the Monopolies Commission.

No, Sir.

While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman's gallantry in remaining on the Cabinet bridge during the recent tempest has occupied a good deal of his time, may I ask if he would apply his mind to this subject, which is of great importance and great interest to the community?

I said in answer to an earlier question this afternoon that I thought it would be wrong to announce in advance of this summer which industries I have selected for reference to the Commission.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of shoes from Eire are running at an annual figure of about 700,000 pairs, whereas Great Britain is restricted by quota to less than 20,000 pairs in her exports to Eire; and whether he will put Eire exports on quota until such times as that country will reciprocate.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to leather footwear. Imports of leather footwear from the Irish Republic in the first quarter of this year were running at an annual rate of under 350,000 pairs. The quota for imports of leather shoes into the Irish Republic from all sources this year is 20,000 pairs, as it has been in the previous two years.

The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir." As I indicated to my hon. Friend in reply to his supplementary question on 13th March, our exports of leather footwear to the Irish Republic take a bigger share of that market than the imports from the Irish Republic take of ours. And I would remind him that our policy is to impose quota restrictions on imports not for protective purposes but for balance of payments reasons.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware, first, that Eire is a foreign country now, and that, therefore, it does affect our balance of payments; and, second, that the figures for the first quarter of this year are lower than last year only because the footwear trade is in such a bad state? The figure last year probably represents the norm in this case. In those circumstances, ought my right hon. Friend not to do something to stop the dumping into the British market of Irish shoes which are produced under conditions vastly inferior to those in this country?

These imports represent less than a half of 1 per cent. of our consumption.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Republic, having regard to population, is Britain's best customer in the world, and that she imported last year £92 million worth of British goods, exporting to this country only £57 million worth?

I am aware that the Irish Republic is in balance of payments difficulties, and that that is one of the reasons that have impelled her to this course.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total quantity and value of boots and shoes imported into the United Kingdom from Eire in 1951; and how it compares with 1950.

Imports of boots and shoes from the Irish Republic in 1951 were 469,000 pairs, valued at £547,000 compared with 170,000 pairs valued at £170,000 in 1950.

Is that not a remarkable rise in a very short time? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the considerable activity further to increase it substantially by making use of cheap labour? In view of the difficulties of the boot and shoe trade, will he not have a look at this again, and keep his attention fixed on it, because it is serious?

It is not true to say cheap labour is employed in Eire.

My information is that it is.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, even though these imports from Eire may amount to a very small percentage of the total of the goods consumed in this country, there have been short-time working and pockets of unemployment in the boot and shoe manufacturing trades at home and that there is some apprehension that, if these imports increase, unemployment may increase. too?

I shall certainly watch this situation, but, as I pointed out in answer to a previous question, though there may have been some increase in these imports, they still represent a very small proportion indeed of our total consumption

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory on manufacturers of clothing to show clearly on all articles the materials used in manufacture, and composition of all such articles.

While I am not prepared to introduce a mass of Orders and Regulations on a subject as complex as textile labelling, I would remind the hon. Member that false trade description is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. And I think, as I said in my statement during the debate on the Prayers to revoke the ending of the Utility Scheme on 1st May, that accurate description can best be fostered through action which is being taken by the various branches of industry working in collaboration with the British Standards Institution and with the active support and encouragement of the Government.

While appreciating that lengthy and full reply, may I ask if it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider means of describing clothing so that people who buy it will be able to clean it without damaging the fabric? Dry cleaners are finding it difficult to clean clothes as the chemicals used in dry cleaning sometimes ruin the cloth. Housewives are also finding it difficult to clean their clothes properly.

I think a good many manufacturers of the new types of fabrics are allowing for that, but it is better dealt with by them through the mechanism I have outlined rather than the imposition of Regulations by the Government as to how people ought to clean clothes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the intention of the last Government to amend the Merchandise Marks Act? Is it the intention of the present Government to continue with that?

I have already said so.

While agreeing that we do not want a lot of Regulations, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that there are difficulties both ways? Does he not think it would be advisable to try to prevent clothes from being ruined? Both housewives and dry cleaners do not really understand what damage is being done to them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of the additional textile orders already placed by his Department; and what proportion of them have been placed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, respectively.

The total value of the additional textile orders placed to date by the purchasing departments amounts to about £4.2 million. The value of tenders out and under consideration at the present time amounts to a further £6 million.

As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 1st May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if my memory serves me right, the reply he gave recently related to the future placing of contracts and that he could not say in advance what the proportions would be? Surely it is possible for him to tell the House what proportions of the £4 million and £6 million contracts are going to go to Lancashire and Yorkshire respectively'?

I will consider the hon. Lady's suggestion, but I am most anxious to avoid any attempt in the House of Commons to try to divide these contracts either between Lancashire or Yorkshire or between different constituencies in other areas.

A week ago the right hon. Gentleman told my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and myself that these contracts were placed by the Ministry of Supply and my hon. Friend's Question today refers to the contracts placed by his Department. Are we to assume that at last the right hon. Gentleman himself has accepted responsibility for placing these contracts?

I accepted responsibility for answering Questions upon this subject, as I thought it might be for the convenience of the House that I should do so, but the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right; the contracts are placed by the Ministry of Supply.

In the past Questions on this subject have been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade. Are Questions now to be directed to the President of the Board of Trade?

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to inform Members whether or not orders are being placed in their own constituencies?

I will consider that suggestion. I would prefer not to have—and I think the House would agree with me—a public debate or Question and answer in the House on individual contracts.

While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on the last point, may I ask if he does not think that Lancashire is entitled to know to what extent these additional orders, on which the Government have placed such importance for the relief of unemployment, will absorb the surplus manpower in Lancashire, so that the people will know whether there will be work for them?

The same argument can be advanced for every area.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to reconsider the lack of capital investment in the textile industry; and what proposal he is proposing to make with reference to a subsidy.

While I would certainly agree with the hon. Member on the importance of maintaining a satisfactory rate of capital investment in the textile industries, two of the main difficulties at the present time are, of course, the shortage of steel and the necessity to restrict capital investment in order to avoid inflation. In these circumstances I do not think that a further subsidy would be appropriate at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Textile Machine Makers, Limited, who have made such great contributions to our exports of textile machinery, have over the years been genuinely disappointed at the amount of investment taking place in the cotton industry, a fact not without relation to the present situation? Will he also bear in mind—and I say this without wishing to use the parish pump technique—that Textile Machine Makers, Limited, is principally centred in Oldham, where there are already 26,000 unemployed?

I am fully conscious of the needs of re-equipment, and I am happy to inform the hon. Member that the amount of automatic looms put on to the home market increased from 61 per cent. in 1950 to 64 per cent. in 1951-52.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state Her Majesty's Government's proposals with reference to the provision of the necessary controls and to the allocation of the necessary order to maintain full employment in the textile industry.

Her Majesty's Government are not of the opinion that the imposition of additional controls and allocation schemes is the right remedy for the present difficulties of the textile industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when there was a system of control there was no unemployment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, was there? Will he also bear in mind the extreme importance of early negotiations with the Colonial territories for the release of sterling balances to increase their purchasing power for consumer goods?

That raises an entirely different question but I believe that with Lancashire fighting for markets the imposition of controls at the present time would hamper rather than help them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what approaches have been made to the Governments of the Commonwealth countries, with a view to concerted action in regard to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade bearing on the subject of tariff preference; when these approaches were made: and with what result.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government overseas and of Governments of foreign countries which operate preferential systems on changes which might now be desirable in the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which restrict preferences.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave on 1st May in reply to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). We intend to consult other Commonwealth Governments when we have completed the examination at present in progress of our future external commercial policy. We shall also consider at that time the action we should take to convey our views to the foreign Governments particularly concerned.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if it is his intention to come to a decision on these matters at an early date in order to restore as quickly as possible our own freedom of action regarding our own trade and commercial policy?

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that we have sat on the fence far too long on this subject? While I do not expect him to give an answer off the cuff this afternoon, may I ask if consideration could be given to this country taking action to restore our freedom in this matter and to give preferences to the Commonwealth countries, whether they are reciprocated or not?

I think it would be unwise to announce in advance the possible date on which I can make a statement; but I think that the right order would be that we should consider first the policy, then consult the Commonwealth, and finish by informing the foreign Governments concerned.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is in the highest degree ludicrous that our people in the textile industry, for instance, should be unemployed while we are straining every nerve to export our products to those countries which do not want them, do not need them, and make every effort to keep them out, while we neglect other countries which are only too anxious to get them?

That is rather an over-simplification of the problem at the present time.

As the President seems to be taking an extraordinary long time to make up his mind on this question of preferences, will he not at least endorse the statement I made to the American delegation at Torquay last year, which has already been the subject of discussion in this House, and make quite clear that he supports the declaration we made on that occasion?

The right hon. Gentleman may say that I am taking a long time; but I have only been in office six months, and he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were in power for six years.

As we are an exporting country, and must increase our exports to live, is it wise now to consider putting up new trade barriers?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of lobsters which the French Government have agreed to allow British exporters to send to France during the next three months.

I regret that this information is not yet available. As soon as the French authorities reply to our inquiries I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that France is exporting £25,000 worth of oysters and £60,000 worth of strawberries to the United Kingdom during this period, and will he use that as an argument in seeking fair play for British producers, particularly lobster fishermen?

I will certainly bear in mind the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the occupations in his Department of the 72 persons dismissed from his Department since last November.

The decrease of 72 in the Board's staff is the difference between an intake of 371 and the departure of 443 staff in the period in question. An analysis of the work performed by the staff which left would have little significance, especially as in most grades, staff declared redundant are selected, in accordance with standing procedure, by shortness of service and not by reference to the work which they may be performing.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many messengers were included in the 72?

Not without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the size of the staff at present employed in the Statistics Division of his Department;

(2) whether he will consider simplifying and reducing the questionnaire sent out by the Statistics Division of his Department.

The staff employed in this Division on 1st October, 1951, was 1,400. On 1st May, 1952, it had been reduced to 1,308, and I hope to reduce it by another 400 by the end of the present financial year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am making every effort in consultation with industry to keep down our statistical requirements to the minimum compatible with meeting the essential needs of Government and industry. In particular, the Census forms are being reduced and simplified with the help of an advisory committee of industrialists. And I should add that the Census of Production for 1952 will be on a "sample" basis, that the majority of firms will not be required to make returns and the Census form will be very much simpler than ever before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give immense satisfaction to industry?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the collection of official statistics in this country is still greatly inferior to the collection of statistics in the U.S.A., and will he make quite sure that any economies that are made do not cripple the effective collection of figures by his Department?

I certainly do not intend to cripple the collection of statistics. I am anxious for them to be reduced to the minimum compatible with what we require, and that they should be as simple as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of emigrants from the United Kingdom for the year 1951.

The total number of emigrants from the United Kingdom in 1951 travelling direct by sea to places outside Europe and the Mediterranean area was 169,521, of whom 150,774 were British and 18,747 of foreign nationality.

Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these emigrants went to the Dominions or Colonies?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put the question down.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the 20-year-old scales of import duties on horticultural produce from Western Europe, notably fruit and vegetables, are now too low in relation to present price levels; and whether he will exercise the escape clause from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with a view to increasing import duties on horticultural produce and affording adequate protection to home growers.

In reply to the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend will be aware that I am already examining applications submitted by the National Farmers' Unions for increased protective duties on horticultural products.

As regards Article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which, I assume, is the escape clause that my hon. Friend has in mind, this provides that individual tariff concessions may be withdrawn where, as a result of unforeseen developments, imports so increase as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to domestic producers. The majority of our horticultural products are not the subject of tariff concessions which preclude any revision of the existing levels of duty and the question of action under Article XIX does not, therefore. arise.

In the few cases where we have undertaken not to increase the rates of duty on imports of fruit and vegetables from foreign sources, such imports are at present restricted on balance of payments grounds and accordingly the conditions contemplated in Article XIX are not fulfilled.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the unforeseen circumstances to which he referred in his reply have, in fact, already arisen? The fruit and vegetable acreage of the United Kingdom has steadily been declining in the last two years and will not be increased until confidence is restored. Is it not therefore urgently necessary to review these import tariffs?

The point is that these tariffs are not all bound under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, as these are not bound, the necessity in any circumstances of using Article XIX will not always arise.

Is the Minister aware that his statement is totally at variance with the spirit of the liberalisation of European trade advocated by his party at Strasbourg and elsewhere?

My statement was a simple clarification of the factual position.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the results of the questionnnaires sent out from the Statistics Division of his Department to the paint trade for the year 1949 have yet been issued.

No, Sir, but it is expected that the reports of the Census of Production for 1949, including that on the paint trade, will be published well before the end of this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the lateness of the publication of these results they are quite useless?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman lending his authority to the notion that a form is only a form when it is issued by a Labour Government but should be called a questionnaire when issued by a Conservative Government?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what replies he has received from the Australian Government concerning the cancellations of orders, already completed, of goods made to special specifications or bearing the imprint of Australian importers, and which cannot, therefore, be sold in other markets; and if he is aware that this is a particularly urgent problem for the Sheffield cutlery and silverware industries.

The Australian Government has said that they will consider sympathetically the special difficulties arising over goods specially made for Australia which were already in production or completed when their restrictions were imposed, and which cannot be disposed of in other markets without severe loss.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what steps these firms should take in order to avail themselves of that sympathetic consideration?

The step that they should take immediately is to communicate with the importer in Australia so that he can make the necessary representations there.

As the goods were ordered on f.o.b. contract, is it not clear that the onus is on the importer to fulfil a contract which is legally binding in this country?

The answer which I have given has no relation to the legal contractual position. It simply states that where there are goods of this category the Australian Government are anxious, irrespective of whether there is a binding contract or not, to facilitate their import.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the results of the Government's examination of our future external commercial policy, including our policy towards the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This examination raises fundamental and complex questions of economic policy. I do not expect to be in a position to make any further statement for some little time.

In view of the great interest which is taken in this question on both sides of the House, will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the House of Commons in debate on the matter before the Government complete their examination and consult the Commonwealth countries?

I think it would be better, for the time being, for me to complete my examination. The subjects that the House discusses are a matter for the House itself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have been studying this matter for many years and that we came to very definite conclusions a long time ago? Is there any need for further examination?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that by the shutting down of the rayon works in Flint, the main source of employment for that town is closed; and, in view of this, what proposals he has to make, either for placing contracts which would enable the factories to re-open or for alternative industrial enterprise in the area.

I understand that, as at present planned, these factories, which, as the hon. Member states, provide the main source of employment in Flint, will be closed for a period of four weeks only, as a temporary measure made necessary by the serious falling off in demand which is at present affecting rayon production in common with other sections of the textile industry. Under these circumstances, I feel that it would be premature to consider the introduction of new enterprises to the area.

As regards Government contracts, these factories produce rayon yarn for which no orders are placed by the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rayon could be substituted for cotton in the specifications for a number of Services orders? This would save considerable dollar expenditure, would in no way harm Lancashire and would keep workers in employment in North Wales and other rayon centres. Will he take the matter up energetically and speedily with the Service Departments?

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the profit or loss, to date, made by the Raw Cotton Commission, taking into account the original stock taken over at the valution of market price or cost, whichever is the higher, at the date of opening.

I have been asked to reply.

On 1st January, 1948, the Raw Cotton Commission took over from the Cotton Control net assets to the value of nearly £57 million at the market values then current. There was also transferred to it a sum of approximately £31 million to form a Reserve Fund, representing the profits made from trading by the Cotton Control during the preceding two years. From 1st January, 1948, to the end of July, 1951, the net trading profit has amounted to approximately £10½ million. In arriving at the net trading profit, stocks are valued at cost or replacement value, whichever is the lower.

While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that very detailed and simple reply, may I ask if he can give me a more up-to-date figure of the profit and loss in view of the fluctuations in the value of cotton which have since occurred?

No, Sir I cannot give more up-to-date figures than those which I have given, but the annual report will be published in the next week or two.

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what proportion of purchases of cotton, made by the Raw Cotton Commission during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, were hedged by sales of futures in the New York or other cotton markets.

None, Sir.

While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that even simpler reply, may I ask him if he is aware that, if he is not hedging the very large stock which he has in his possession, he is becoming the biggest uncovered bull speculator that has ever been seen?

My hon. Friend will observe that I gave a factual answer to his Question. If he wishes to ask a question on the merits of the case perhaps he will put it down.

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will consider using the £4 million Government owned magnesium electron factory at Lowerhouse near Burnley, for the setting up of new industries in order to relieve unemployment in that area.

The possibility of using this factory for other purposes has frequently been examined. According to present estimates it would be needed to produce magnesium in time of war. The plant there is of a specialised nature, and the factory could not be put to other uses without rendering it less capable of producing magnesium. Should circumstances change the question will be gone into again.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the factory was not used for manufacturing magnesium during the later stages of the war? Why should this factory, which is conveniently situated, stand idle, with idle hands round about, while the Government use scarce labour and materials to build a factory for finishing jet planes in the Midlands where there is virtually no unemployment?

The answer to that supplementary question was given in my original reply and in my hon. Friend's answers to Questions by the hon. Member on 20th March.

Mr. Burke.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is a little confusion in the answer as between a quite different answer to almost the same Question by the Minister of Labour yesterday, would it be in order to ask a supplementary question to clear it up, the factory being in my constituency?

I have passed on to the next Question.

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how much magnesium electron metal was imported into the United Kingdom last year; and what were the sources of supply.

Imports of virgin magnesium metal during 1951 for consumption in the U.K. were 2,275 tons. All this came from Canada except 19 and 38 tons from Norway and Japan respectively.

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is aware that some board and paper mills can now only run their machines two-thirds of the normal time because of the lack of demand for their products; and to what extent a cut is being made in the imports of straw board from Holland and elsewhere so as to effect a saving in foreign currency without affecting the total supply available.

My noble Friend is aware that the demand for some sorts of paper and board has recently declined. Import quotas for straw board have been fixed and currency allocations made to importers to run until the end of June. No decision has yet been taken about quotas for the second half of the year but the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend will be among those which will be kept in mind.

As mills are now collecting more waste paper than they can use and as it is very desirable to maintain our home production of straw board, would it not be well to tell our Dutch friends that we would rather have their cheese than their straw board?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated annual dollar remittances allowable in respect of Coca Cola made and bottled under licence in this country.

It is the practice to treat as confidential the exchange control affairs of individual companies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Members of Parliament are not allowed to claim Income Tax relief on their compulsory deductions of £1 per month as contribution for the Members Pension Fund; what is the reason for this; and whether he will amend the Income Tax Acts to enable Members of Parliament to claim this relief in a similar manner to all other contributors to superannuation funds.

The Departmental Committee on pensions for Members of the House of Commons, which recommended the setting up of this Fund in 1937, proposed that contributions should not qualify for any Income Tax relief, in order to ensure that there should be no charge, direct or indirect, upon public funds. The House approved these recommendations and the Select Committee on the Fund in 1947 did not suggest any change in this respect.

The amendment of the law suggested in the Question would result in the conferring on the contributors to this Fund of a tax privilege not available to funds of the same character operated by private employers for their staffs. The last part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Is it not a fact that all contributors to superannuation funds are allowed to make a deduction for Income Tax purposes; and can the hon. Gentleman not see that this is a legitimate request, as it is the same as a local government superannuation scheme?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two kinds of superannuation fund, the one where the contributions entitle the contributor to a fixed and regular benefit, and the one of this kind where there is no right to any benefit at all. Outside superannuation funds operated in this manner do not carry immunity from tax.

Surely that supports my case. If a Member has to contribute and is not entitled to gain any benefit, surely he is entitled to claim Income Tax rebate on his contributions?

This is essentially a matter for the House, but so far as I am concerned I would not venture to recommend the House to confer on itself a privilege which it does not confer on its fellow citizens.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government have asked the Burma Government to reconsider their request to postpone payment of the first instalment of the Burma debt to Britain.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), on 24th April.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount concerned is quite relatively small; that the Burma Government have been engaged in trying to put down Communist disorders, which have been very adversely affecting their internal revenue: and that this niggardly attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government is regarded by the Burma Government as a complete reversal of the friendly policy followed by the Labour Government?

The fact that the sum involved, about £1⅓ million, is comparatively small, does not make it more difficult for the sum to be paid. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the sum now in question is the first instalment due under an agreement made by the previous Government with the Burma Government. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that such an agreement should be allowed to lapse until there is an exceptional reason for observing it. We take rather the view that it should be observed unless there is an exceptional and new reason for modifying or changing it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this will make it infinitely more difficult for the Burma Government to deal with the Communist insurrection now going on in Burma?

In the last Burma Budget there was a surplus, and there is an estimated trading surplus now. In those circumstances, although we are awaiting the reply of the Burma Government, we have not as yet seen a sufficient reason why this agreement made, as I say, by the previous Government with the Burma Government should not be kept.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government of Burma has now paid the instalment on her debt to the United Kingdom due on 1st April.

No, Sir.

Is it not desirable to maintain friendly relations with Burma and to assist them in their fight against Communism? Cannot the Minister take a less uncompromising attitude towards this matter and invite the Burma Government to send a financial mission to London to discuss it, before he behaves in such a cavalier fashion?

We are still awaiting a reply from the Burma Government. I do not think there is anything I can add, pending the receipt of that reply, to what I have said already.

Have the Burma Government given any indication when they are likely to pay this instalment?

We have not yet had a reply to our representations.

When the Burma reply is received, will the Government treat it in the most sympathetic spirit, in view of the very gallant stand made by the Burma Government against Communism since 1947?

We shall, of course, consider very carefully what we hear from the Burma Government. We have now in Rangoon a representative of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Has the Minister consulted the Foreign Office? When I put this Question to the Foreign Office originally it was transferred to the right hon. Gentleman. As this is much more a matter for the Foreign Office than for the Treasury, is it not better to consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

I have done so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as it is official Government policy that higher food prices shall be compensated by increased taxation allowances, he will take some action to help those people receiving no benefit from the new allowances.

I would remind the hon. Lady that the Budget proposals must be read as a whole. The benefits conferred were not confined to taxation allowances and, in so far as proved possible, were designed to help all sections of the community.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of the 20 million incomes liable to Income Tax there are six million who will not have to pay any; and that below that there are a further three million who do not come within the Income Tax category? What benefits does he think those people will receive?

As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, the benefits are not confined to taxation allowances, but also include the wide scope of social improvements announced by my right hon. Friend.

In view of the fact that a very large number of low-paid workers are much worse off as a result of the Budget as a whole, and in view of the answer given by the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend, are we to assume that the Government now accept the view that these workers should have increases in wages?

It is the view of the Government that the Budget taken as a whole will have the effect of improving our economy to the benefit of all sections of the community.

The hon. Gentleman will certainly get his answer at the polling booths today. What advantages does he think people have in this Budget, if they have not either got two children and if they have to pay additional sums for their health bill? How does he think they will meet the increased cost of living?

It is in the interests of everyone that the national economy, by which we all live, should be restored and fortified.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent rationed and unrationed foods were included in his estimated price rise of 1s. 6d. per head per week as the maximum rise for the coming 12 months; and if he will give a list of foods and estimated prices showing how the figure of 1s. 6d. was arrived at.

Both rationed and unrationed subsidised foods were included in the calculation of the likely average effect of reducing the figure of the food subsidies to £250 million a year. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food will announce later the remaining price increases involved.

Could I have an answer to the second part of my Question? Would it be possible to publish the list of foods in HANSARD?

The hon. Lady will realise that several alternative distributions of the increase would leave the total unchanged, and I am reluctant to anticipate or prejudice the future decisions or announcements of my right hon. and gallant Friend by mentioning one particular combination.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the number of alternatives to make this figure of 1s. 6d. still a valid one would equal the permutation of any football pool? Are the Government still of the opinion that the 1s. 6d. increase is a valid figure for the remainder of this year?

I really have little to add. There are several alternative combinations which would leave this figure unchanged. I have no reason to suggest a change in the total figure. The precise distribution will appear as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food makes his announcements—and they are his—on the prices of particular foods.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present average estimated taxation, including export tax, paid by rubber plantation limited companies operating in Malaya and the corresponding taxation of industrial companies operating in the United Kingdom, in both cases stated as a percentage of profits.

I am afraid that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not available.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that most of these companies pay a very penal rate of taxation; and does he not think it very unfair, considering that they have had to rehabilitate themselves after enemy occupation, and are much more heavily penalised compared with companies in this country?

My hon. Friend only asked for certain figures, which I regret to say are not available. The observations in his supplementary question may arise later, in a few weeks' time.

Is it not the case that during the boom period many of these rubber companies penalised the general public?

Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the United States Government that the fall in the price of rubber makes it immensely more difficult for us to combat Communism in Malaya?

That point is. of course, very present in our minds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Messrs. Kirby and West, Dairymen, Leicester, who fitted windows on each side of their 8 h.p. Ford van to ensure greater safety on the roads by enabling the driver to see through the sides of the van, have been requested to pay Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. of value of the vehicle plus the cost of the work done; and whether he will instruct his tax inspectors to withdraw this request so that vehicle owners shall not be discouraged from taking such safety precautions.

I am having inquiries made into this matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member later.

In the event of the inquiry resulting in the information which I have had, namely, that if they had not put the windows in there would be no tax and now that they have put the windows in they cannot remove them because they would still have to pay the tax, will the hon. Gentleman see that this ridiculous position is cleared up by whatever means are possible?

:That question contains three hypotheses; but I am looking into the matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is now proposed to make scissors and blanks, not exceeding 8 inches in length, hitherto exempt under Group 13 (b) of the tax schedule, subject to Purchase Tax; and how much revenue this change of classification is expected to produce in the present financial year.

It has been found that the scissors affected are not within the terms of the exemption to which the hon. Member refers. It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the amount of revenue involved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one consequence of this change of classification is the increased charge that textile workers must pay for scissors and other tools that they use in their trade, at a time when they need relief and not further impositions by the Government? Is he further aware that this change is imposing additional charges of taxation without reference to the House? What remedies can we have when officials make these decisions without reference to Parliament?

The reason for the decision is that certain facts have come to light which quite clearly show that these scissors are in a category to which the exemption does not apply. It is, therefore, the duty of the officials concerned to apply the law, in this particular case the Finance Act, 1948.

Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to changing the classification so that scissors which are used as tools by textile workers do not carry this tax, as the workers are badly in need of relief, like the cutlery trade itself?

That is another question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the Government's wages policy; and what discussions have taken place with the Trades Union Congress concerning details of this policy.

My right hon. Friend is in frequent consultation with both sides of industry on this as on other questions, but he does not think it appropriate to make a general statement at this moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported to have made a speech last week in Saffron Walden, his own constituency, to the effect that he would try to introduce a policy of wage restraint? Is he not further aware that because of the rapid rise in the cost of living resulting from the Budget, trade unionists are compelled now to make applications for wage increases?

I cannot make a wide statement on that very general question now.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the amount of foreign exchange which will be used by British tourists during the current financial year as a result of recent reductions; and what estimate has been obtained of the amount likely to be spent by foreign tourists in Great Britain during the same period.

I am reluctant to attempt a definite forecast of our receipts and payments under this head in 1952–53. I may remark, however, that in 1951 it is estimated that the non-sterling expenditure on travel amounted to about £63 million, and receipts to about £43 million. It would seem reasonable to hope that the reduction in tourist allowance announced will prevent a deficit this year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he' can now make a statement on the negotiations proceeding for the payment of a second week's annual holiday with pay to industrial workers in certain industrial establishments.

I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Lady on 24th April.

In view of the fact that these negotiations have been entered into, presumably as a matter of justice, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that women civil servants also require their claim to be met as a matter of justice?

All relevant considerations will be borne in mind in these discussions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some office cleaners working in Whitehall who a year ago got two weeks' holiday have had it cut to less than two weeks as a result of manipulating dates? As this represents a considerable injustice, would he look into that matter?

It is that sort of question which makes these negotiations somewhat complicated, and perhaps to some extent accounts for their length.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the £1,084 million external finance required for the purpose of implementing the Colombo Plan has been forthcoming; and how much of this sum has been provided by private investment, Governments both inside and outside the Commonwealth and the International Bank;

(2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Colombo Plan for cooperative economic development in South and South-East Asia.

I am glad of this opportunity of commending to the House the First Annual Report of the Consultative Committee on Economic Development in South-East Asia, which was presented to Parliament on 30th April [Cmd. 8529]. I affirm the continuing interest of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the progress shown by this Report in carrying out the Colombo Plan. While the Report rightly emphasises that spectacular results must not be looked for at the end of the first year, it is the view of the Consultative Committee that a good start has been made and that a substantial quickening of the pace of development may reasonably be expected next year.

When the Plan was originally prepared, in 1950, it was calculated that its total cost over six years would be £1,868 million. Of this total, £784 million would be found by the countries themselves, and £250 million would be found by releases of sterling balances, leaving £834 million required from other sources. It was always recognised that these estimates were provisional and subject to alteration in the light of developments. This Report gives the information desired by my hon. Friend more fully than would be suitable in an answer to a Question.

On a point of order Is it not extremely unfortunate that a very long statement of this kind, covering a Report already available to all Members, should be interpolated into the middle of Question time?

It was not practicable to make a statement so conveniently at the time of, or immediately before, the publication of the Report. If I may finish the statement, it serves that purpose. It goes on:

The Report shows that the temporary improvement in the terms of trade of the countries concerned has enabled them to finance the early stages of their programmes to a large extent from their own resources. As the Report points out, the indications are that the need for external assistance in 1952-53 will be greater than during the first year of the Plan. These needs are under constant discussion through bilateral arrangements between donor and recipient countries.

The Report therefore records satisfactory progress during the first year of a scheme which is of great importance not only to the participating countries but to the whole of the free world.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for Questions addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on health matters to be answered by the Minister of Health.

The Lord President of the Council is responsible to Parliament for the work of the Medical Research Council and, as I stated in the House on 20th November, Questions about that body should be put down to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President.

Questions on health matters generally should not, of course, be addressed to the Lord President of the Council but to the Minister of Health.

Is it not ridiculous that the Minister of Works should be answering Questions on cancer research, for example? Is it not about time that the whole matter was looked at again, including the system of having the Lord President of the Council in the other place instead of here to answer Questions himself?

I cannot think that this is an urgent matter, although it has become very topical. The only Question that has been asked since the Government took office about the work of the Medical Research Council was one by the hon. Member himself, on 29th April, which he very properly addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and which was answered by him. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is learning anything now, or is taking the first opportunity of making a protest against what is definitely established.

Surely the Prime Minister realises how ludicrous it is for the Minister of Works, of all Ministers, or his Parliamentary Secretary, to have to get up in this House and answer Questions on health matters. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for all health Questions, including those on cancer research, to be replied to by the Minister of Health or his Parliamentary Secretary, and not by the Minister of Works?

I do not think there is much point in what the hon. Member says, because it would only have been to his credit to have seen the point when he asked his first Question a short time ago.

Does it matter in this Government which Ministers answer what Questions, because they all have an equally bad grasp of the subject?

It certainly does not matter so much in this Government as it would if the party opposite had to answer Questions, either on foreign or on domestic affairs.

May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, for our guidance? You will recollect that for a number of weeks past, we have not been reaching much further than Question No. 45 to the Prime Minister. Some weeks back you were good enough to point out that it is not your prerogative to tell Ministers how they should answer Questions or whether, in fact, they should or should not answer them at all, and that, of course, we appreciate. But you went on to say that so far as you personally were concerned, you felt that where it was possible for Ministers to circulate long answers, it would be advisable for them to do SO in the OFFICIAL REPORT and that you would like Ministers to keep their replies short.

May I ask, Sir, whether you can again put to the Ministers concerned, on behalf of both sides of the House, the request that when there are long replies they should as far as possible try to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

What I said on that occasion—it is still my own opinion—is that I think it is for the general convenience of the House for long answers, especially when they involve a number of figures, to be circulated. As regards the progress of Questions generally, however, I would point out that that is to a great extent in the hands of the House. If not only Ministers' replies, but supplementary questions also, are made as brief as possible, that will assist in the progress of business.

—To ask the Minister of Agriculture what sum of money is being spent annually in research on foot-and-mouth disease.

ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish in HANSARD a full statement of the progress made in recent years in research into foot-and-mouth disease; whether this research has the highest priority on all necessary financial and other resources; and how soon he anticipates that it will be possible to deal with outbreaks of this disease other than by complete destruction of infected herds.

ask the Minister of Agriculture (1) what evidence he has that the virus of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is new; whether it has yet been properly identified; how long animals take to recover; and, during the present outbreak, how many animals have been slaughtered as possible contacts but have not actually contracted the disease;

(2) whether, after consultation with the Lord President of the Council, he will consider the setting up immediately of a Veterinary Research Council on the same lines as the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils, but with the special object to co-operating with veterinary services in British Dominions and Colonies, with a view to establishing a better understanding of purely veterinary problems, especially foot-and-mouth disease.

—To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will appoint a standing conference drawn from research scientists, the veterinary profession, the Royal Agricultural Society of England, the National Farmers' Union and other representative agricultural bodies to keep under review Britain's policy on foot-and-mouth disease so that all may be assured that the best advice is being taken in deciding and carrying out national policy.

With your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, I should like to answer Questions 53, 59, 64, 65 and 67.

The present situation is serious, but it is certainly not unprecedented, and unless it deteriorates very seriously, I have no doubt that it can be brought under control.

Since November, 1951, until midday today, there have been 258 outbreaks of the disease in this country. This should be compared with the experience of Denmark, where 26,000 outbreaks have occurred in the last six months, and that of Holland, where there have been 23,000 in roughly the same period. Western Germany has suffered much more severely. There the total number of outbreaks in 1951 was 155,000. The outbreaks that occurred in the United Kingdom in the winter of 1937-38 and in 1941 were comparable in severity to the present one, and there were much more serious outbreaks in each of the years 1922-24 and in 1942. In every case the disease was stamped out, to the immense benefit of the flocks and herds of this country, of meat and milk production and of our valuable export trade in pedigree stock.

Movement and marketing restrictions have been imposed over most of Great Britain because of the danger of infection having been spread through two markets. This is purely a holding operation while the veterinary staff of my Department are tracing and keeping under observation the animals concerned, which have been dispersed over a wide area. When that operation has been completed, I hope it will be possible to make substantial reductions in the area under control.

Research on foot-and-mouth disease is carried out at the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Institute at Pirbright. A total of £93,540 has been provided for grants to this Institute in my Department's Estimates for the current financial year, and with the approval of the Treasury considerably increased funds are being made available for the development of the station. The governing body will in future be publishing an Annual Report. The OFFICIAL REPORT, I would suggest, is not a suitable medium for the publication of reports on scientific work. My veterinary advisers keep in the closest touch with the progress of scientific research, not only at the Pirbright Institute but at similar centres overseas. In addition, machinery exists through the medium of the Agricultural Research Council, and the Agricultural Improvement Council for ensuring that any results of research which may have a bearing on administration and policy are brought to my notice. I do not consider that any new body is required for this purpose. I have asked the Chairman of the Agricultural Improvement Council to bring the matter up specially at the next meeting of the Council.

I have no evidence that the virus of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is new. It has been identified as type "A." Recent experience on the Continent with this virus has shown that a number of animals, particularly young animals, die, and the time taken by others to recover varies considerably.

As it is not possible to say in every case whether, at the time of slaughter, a contact animal has contracted the disease, no figures are available as to the number of unaffected animals which have been killed.

Finally, I would ask the House to accept my earnest assurance that there is no question whatever that in the present state of our scientific knowledge, the abandonment, or even relaxation, of the slaughter policy would involve the livestock industry of this country in the gravest disaster since the days of the cattle plague of the 19th century, with incalculable consequences to our meat and milk supplies.

All responsible agricultural organisations are emphatic in the view that the slaughter policy is the best method of dealing with the disease in this country.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture stated that they would produce a report of the work done at Pirbright? Whilst there is, according to my right hon. and gallant Friend, to be an annual report, can he take steps to publish as early as possible a report on the very valuable work which that department has done?

I will look into that.

May I ask the Minister whether the help of the Medical Research Council, which lately has been carrying out more useful researches in connection with virus diseases, has been asked for?

I could not answer that question today, but I will certainly see that it is looked into.