asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what progress has been made in issuing standards for clothing, textiles, colour fastness and shrink resistance;

For details of the progress made in establishing textile and clothing standards, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) on 26th June. Arrangements for labelling articles to indicate whether they comply with these standards are being made by industries concerned, in association with the British Standards Institution.

While the wholesale and retail associations give full support to informative labelling, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are several West Riding manufacturers who seem determined not to give the fibre content of their productions and want to continue using the word "wool" even for as low a wool content as 15 per cent.? Will the Minister look into this matter, in the public interest?

There might not be complete unanimity on this complex problem, but I am satisfied that progress is now being made in this matter.

Will the Minister keep an eye on this aspect of the matter, in the public interest?

Will my right hon. Friend impress on the public the fact that, in the textile industry, we have the best finishers in the world, and that adequate standards can be maintained provided the public demand them and that the retailers are willing to pay the extra penny or two?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is today a great amount of shoddy material in the shops, that the so-called reductions are not beneficial reductions at all but represent only reductions in the standards, and that women very much resent this cheap stuff? Will the Minister see that this situation is remedied?

It is rather a pity to suggest that the shops are full of shoddy articles, when Lancashire is going through very considerable difficulties. I believe that in the shops today there is very good value for money.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for sales resistance is in respect of the goods that are really shoddy, and the under 4s. per yard standard, which escapes the D tax?

I do not accept that at all. I am quite satisfied that the textile areas of this country are producing goods of very good quality.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take following the report, a copy of which has been sent to him, by the trade mission of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that recently toured South Africa, concerning consistent criticisms they met of the serious deterioration in British textiles in the last few years, with specific complaint about poor yarns, bad weaving, indifferent printing, uneven dying and bleaching.

Action in this field is primarily for the textile industries: I am confident that all concerned in our textile industries will give the most earnest consideration to the report of the mission and do their utmost to safeguard the traditional reputation of their products in South Africa, and indeed all other markets. And I am confident that today Lancashire can produce, and is exporting, textiles of the highest quality.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the seriousness of these statements? The Government should look into them and, if they are not accurate, say so. Is he not aware that the leading journal of the trade, "The Draper," said, on 2nd February, that there were backsliders in the industry and that it was necessary for the Government to do something about it?

I dare say that there are backsliders in any industry, but there is no doubt that at the time of the sellers' market goods of an inferior quality were supplied by all textile manufacturers all over the world. That was bound to happen. At present, I am quite satisfied that we are producing goods of really good quality.

Does not the President of the Board of Trade realise that when the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, through an important trade mission, makes charges about the condition of our goods, those charges will be read not merely in South Africa but in every part of the world; and, further, does he not consider it to be his duty to seek to improve the goods or modify the charges made in this Question?

What the Manchester Chamber of Commerce say in a report which they made after a valuable mission to South Africa is a matter for them, and should be discussed between them and the industries of Lancashire.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these charges are not intended to apply to the generality of exports from this country, but were probably true of a limited number of those exports?

Yes, I think that that is true.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the net earnings of British films in overseas markets in each of the last three available years.

For 1950, the first year for which figures are available, the net amount payable to British producers out of the earnings of British films in overseas markets was about £2¼ million. Figures for 1951 are not yet available.

In view of the fact that this amount is almost the same as the earnings in this country, does not my right hon. Friend think it constitutes a refutation of those who say that the industry is not deserving of assistance, especially as this export is a net export demanding practically no imports in return?

I think it is a valuable contribution towards solving our problems.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British films have received major circuit bookings in the United States of America during each of the last three years.

I assume that by the term "major circuit bookings in the United States" my hon. Friend has in mind the circuits which have been associated with the major American producing companies. I am informed that, excluding British films made in this country by the United Kingdom subsidiaries of American film companies, 10 British films have had major circuit bookings in the last three years, two in 1949, two in 1950 and six in 1951.

Does it not appear to my right hon. Friend that these figures are rather disappointing, in view of the assurances given in 1948? When he has a further discussion on this matter, later in the year, will he undertake to draw the attention of the Americans to this situation?

I certainly do find the figure disappointing, and anything I can do to enable a larger number to be shown I shall do.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of how the import and export trade balance for 1951 would have been affected had the terms of trade been those of 1938.

If the average value of imports had risen by the same proportion as that of exports compared with 1938, the value of imports in 1951 would have been about £2,800 million c.i.f. instead of £3,914 million, and the adverse trade balance of £1,208 million would have been less than £100 million.

Does that mean that, as a result of the change in the terms of the trade since 1938, our import bill has gone up to something like £1,100 million?

I have not worked out the calculation; no doubt my hon. Friend has done so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cotton-spinning firms have notified his Department by 30th June of their intention to continue buying their cotton supplies from the Raw Cotton Commission; how many had indicated their wish to employ private importers; and what approximate spindlage is represented by each group, respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cotton-spinning firms have contracted out from the Raw Cotton Commission up to 30th June for the buying of part or all of their raw cotton requirements.

One hundred and sixty-two cotton-spinning firms, representing 210 mills and about 23 million spindles, or 68 per cent., have notified their intention to continue to obtain the whole of their supplies from the Raw Cotton Commission; 47 firms representing 60 mills and about five million spindles, or 15 per cent., have notified their intention to import the whole of their requirements privately, and 15 firms representing 55 mills and about six million spindles, or 17 per cent., have notified their intention to obtain part of their supplies from the Raw Cotton Commission and part privately. Nine firms representing nine mills have not yet replied. Some firms are included in more than one of these categories.

Is not the fact that a large number of firms have refused to exercise their option to contract out a remarkable tribute to the work of the Raw Cotton Commission, and will the right hon. Gentleman add his compliment to that Commission in addition to those which have been paid by a number of big firms during the past few weeks? Why did he find it necessary to extend the period in which firms could make up their minds? Was it so that certain parties could get to work to persuade more firms to contract out of the scheme?

The important thing here is not the number who contract in or who contract out. The important thing is that people should be free to do what they want. They can buy their cotton, if they like, through the Raw Cotton Commission; or, if they like, on private account, which is more than they have been able to do for quite a long time.

The right hon. Gentleman has ignored both the questions I have put to him. Is not the fact that so many firms still prefer to continue to get their cotton through the Raw Cotton Commission a remarkable compliment to the work that the Commission has done?

I do not think the Commission requires any tribute of that character. I think it does a fine job of work and I have never questioned that. Certainly, we are indebted to Sir Ralph Lacey for the work he has done, but the important thing here is that people should buy cotton in the way in which they prefer to buy it.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Raw Cotton Commission and to the spinners generally that we do not wish, at least on this side of the House, to make party political capital out of what is a plain trading arrangement?

Does the answer of the President mean that this is another of the much-vaunted Tory promises that the Government will not be able to carry out—the opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?

This matter has been handled in a manner satisfactory to all parties in all sections of Lancashire, including the trade union movement, and we ought to be very satisfied with it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the custom of many families living in rooms to purchase their furniture on the hire-payment system and to leave the furniture in the store until the last payment has been made because they have insufficient space in their rooms; that in certain cases persons who have paid substantial sums of money have lost claim to their furniture due to the liquidation of the firm concerned; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with such cases.

When the customer has not previously taken delivery of furniture which he is buying on hire-purchase or credit-sale terms, the liquidator will arrange for delivery if the furniture in question can be identified. If it cannot, the customer is a creditor and ranks for dividend with other unsecured creditors. I see no ground for introducing legislation.

Is the Minister aware that, when the Principality Furnishing Company at Cardiff recently went into voluntary liquidation, working families in that city lost over £16,000 without any furniture being made available—[An HON. MEMBER "Private enterprise."]—and in view of the severe hardship which this causes to honest working people, will he make it obligatory on such traders to put money received in this fashion into a separate account rather than into a general account?

While expressing every sympathy with the real hardship that was caused in that case, I doubt whether legislation would be practicable on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will have a word with me later.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many cases the argument he used, that this furniture is identifiable, does not really apply because it cannot be distinguished from the other furniture in the shop and, therefore, the unfortunate hire-purchaser is put in the same category as all the other unsecured creditors?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that sufficient material will be available to the cutlery and jewellery industries for the making of Coronation souvenirs to be sold in this country and abroad.

With regard to non-ferrous metals, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 16th June. Other materials should be available in sufficient quantities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade are expecting a deal of export business from this to help the balance of payments, and that his statement will be welcomed in that respect because there was some doubt about ferrous metals?

Is it the President's intention, in making these allocations, to fix an extra quota to help the export drive?

I do not propose to fix a special quota in the case of nonferrous metals. I am hopeful that sufficient will be available for requirements for this purpose. For Coronation souvenirs generally, the market is, of course, reserved to home producers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that these souvenirs are of some slight worth and are not merely made for sale?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in his discussions with the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies in regard to the increase of tariffs upon horticultural imports, notably fruit and vegetables; and what action he proposes to take to secure revision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Import Duties Acts to facilitate such tariff increases.

The examination of the application made by the National Farmers' Union for increased horticultural tariffs is making good progress, but I am not in a position to say when it will be completed. I cannot, of course, predict what decisions will be taken as a result of the examination, but I shall naturally consider, at the appropriate time, what action is necessary to implement any decisions which may be taken.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that notwithstanding the very considerable import reductions of fruit and vegetables this year, the heavy home crops, coupled with the excess of such imports left over from last year, are causing acute embarrassment to growers in this country? Is it not, therefore, a matter of great urgency that a settled policy for horticultural imports should be reached at a very early date?

I am hopeful that a valuable result will come from the discussions which are proceeding on the application by the National Farmers' Union.

Is the President aware that any increase in horticultural tariffs would have a further serious effect on the price of food in this country, and in view of that serious effect upon the consumer will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that he will reach no decision on this matter until there has been a full debate in the House?

Horticultural tariffs might in many respects be a weapon far less harsh than the quota restrictions which are used at present.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the extent and value of the quota for imports of Yugoslavian carpets into the United Kingdom for the year 1952 as a result of recent trade discussions; and what reciprocal benefits have been obtained for United Kingdom carpet or other manufacturers.

Under the five-year trade agreement with Yugoslavia. we have established an import quota of £50,000 for Yugoslav carpets for the current year. There is no specific quota for United Kingdom carpets, but despite their financial difficulties the Yugoslavs have established quotas of about £¾ million for the import of United Kingdom textiles and other consumer goods for which no provision was made last year.

While there may be justification for importing foreign carpets in certain circumstances in view of reciprocal benefits which are given for United Kingdom manufactures, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the home carpet industry is going through an exceedingly difficult period and that every import quota granted in Europe or elsewhere is merely aggravating the employment position in our carpet industry?

While sympathising with the very proper desire of my hon. Friend to safeguard the industry of Kidderminster, I should point out that the imports of carpets from Yugoslavia for the first four months of this year amounted only to £141. In practice, therefore, they are hardly very serious.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of sugar exported during the past 12 months and at what average cost per ton, from Britain and the Colonies to countries in Western Europe who, in the same period, imported fondant into Great Britain; what was the total tonnage of such fondant imported into this country; and at what average price, per ton.

Imports of fondant have been separately recorded in the trade returns only since 1st January this year. In the five months January to May, 1952, imports into the United Kingdom of fondant from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France, totalled 18,405 tons at an average c.i.f. value of £83 a ton. United Kingdom exports of refined sugar to these countries in January to May, 1952, were 1,610 tons at an average f.o.b. value of £53 a ton. No sugar is exported from the Colonies to Western Europe.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey those facts to the Minister of Food, who told me a fortnight ago that this trade was being brought to an end? Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to bring about some relationship between the price for which sugar is sold and the price at which fondant is bought, because fondant is bought at twice the price at which sugar is sold? Thirdly, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these circumstances something ought to be done to find some alternative trade in order to provide sugar for home industries, which are suffering seriously because of the lack of sugar, which is being sent to Western European countries?

The last question is, of course, a matter which should properly be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food. On the point raised in the question, the answer is that this arrangement is a net earner of hard currency, which at present we certainly need.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that while the existing hire purchase Order remains in force an article acquired by the method of rental agreement can never become the property of the purchaser; and if he will bear this in mind when considering future action regarding rental agreement.

If the agreement is one of hire, the article does not become the property of the hirer. The Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order deals, however, with hire purchase agreements under which the property will or may pass to the hirer. In present circumstances, I do not intend to amend this Order so as to make it apply to hire agreements.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the point of the Question. Is he aware that under this system of rental agreements, once the purchaser has discharged his obligations the goods may remain in his possession but do not pass into his ownership, and that he must continue to pay rent for an undefined period? Does the Minister think that that nefarious practice is in the public interest, and will he not consider amending the hire purchase Order to put an end to it?

When people get goods under any arrangement, they would be well advised to look at the agreement into which they are entering. If they enter into such an agreement as described by the hon. Member, that would be an agreement, I understand, in which the property did not pass. It would be a hiring agreement, and the Order which is referred to in the answer would not apply to it.

I agree that those concerned should examine their agreements, but is it not the function of the House to protect people in their own interests against follies, if we agree on that word, of this description? Surely we have a duty in the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity and value of black currants, fresh, frozen and pulped, to be imported into the United Kingdom during 1952.

Imports of black-currants from Western Europe and certain other foreign countries are subject to the restrictions which were imposed last November for balance of payments reasons. There are, however, no separate quotas for black currants, whether fresh, frozen or pulped; in each case they are included in quotas covering a variety of other fruits and I cannot estimate what imports of black currants alone will be made this year. The current quotas represent an appreciable reduction on previous imports of the goods covered by them. Imports of fresh, frozen and pulped currants from the sterling area may be made under open general licence.

To what extent are the present difficulties of the horticulture industry caused or increased by excessive imports, particularly in pulp form, during 1951 under the previous Government? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will seek closer consultation with the Ministers of Food and Agriculture in order to alleviate the undoubted hardship which the horticulture industry is suffering?

The Question refers to what is going on in 1952. The National Farmers' Union have agreed that the severity of the present import restrictions makes it unnecessary to have additional restrictions on imports this year during the home marketing period.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that imports last year were not excessive and that the trade was to the mutual advantage of the importers and the exporters?

Nonsense. The party opposite ruined the whole lot.

I have carefully restricted my answer to the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Films Council are connected with cinemas which failed to fulfil the quota in the year 1951; and to what extent he took such connections into account in considering the council's recommendations about prosecutions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will remove from the Films Council all those persons concerned with the ownership or management of cinemas which have become liable, through persistent defaults, to prosecution under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

With the hon. Members' permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 26 together.

I do not give my permission. My Question is quite different and I want a separate answer.

The hon. Member will only get the same answer twice.

I am prepared to give the same answer twice. I apologise for its length. It is as follows:

Is the President aware that practically everybody, apart from himself, now appreciates that the Films Council has become an open conspiracy to defy the law? Is it not quite clear from what we were told last week that this Council recommended that the most notorious defaulter of all, the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, should not be prosecuted, and that the Minister has accepted that advice? Will he disregard the recommendations of the Council in a situation like this—when vested interests are represented on it—or else ask the members connected with defaulting cinema circuits to resign from the Council forthwith?

I do not accept the description applied by the hon. Gentleman to the Films Council, of which at least one hon. Member of this House is a member. It has 22 members, seven of whom are independent members of standing, including Lord Drogheda, the Chairman, and there are, in addition, some members—I think seven—who are exhibitor members. However, I realise that there is some substance in the point that if an exhibitor member is sitting on the Council when the case of a cinema for which he is responsible comes up for consideration it would be better if he were not there during the deliberations. I have accepted that. In fact, such members do not attend when the Defaults Sub-Committee meets. I have suggested to Lord Drogheda, as I said in my answer, that they would do well to withdraw when the cases relating to their cinemas are considered by the full Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a document which I have here, issued by the Board of Trade itself, his answer was inaccurate in that there are not six exhibitors on the Film Council but seven? On the Defaults Committee and the Quota Reliefs Committee there are seven exhibitors out of 14 members, and on certain occasions the place of Sir Arthur Jarratt as a renter is taken by Mr. Sam Eckman, who is the controller or owner of the notorious Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, and these occasions give the exhibitors a majority on the Defaults Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all defaults are first considered by a Defaults Sub-Committee, which has four members of whom two are exhibitors? Is is not absolutely fantastic that this situation, with its ramifications of interests, should be allowed to continue? Even if exhibitors withdraw when their own cinema is under discussion, naturally their friends and business associates will not recommend their prosecution in their absence.

Exhibitors are members of the Films Council because that was laid down not by me but by the previous administration. I have no doubt that we could have a discussion as to whether that was right or wrong, but it is a fact and one that we have to accept. My job is to try to administer that arrangement in the fairest possible way. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the proposal which I have put forward is a reasonable one, that we should accept the Act passed by the previous Administration and that a member of the Council who is concerned with a cinema which comes before the Council should withdraw during the consideration of its case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that from a purely legal point of view this is a most unsatisfactory arrangement, probably due to the fact that it was introduced by the late Government? While I accept the statement of my right hon. Friend that those who are affected withdraw when a decision is made, the important thing is that justice should appear to be done, and there is a fear in the public mind that there might be some prejudice in arriving at these decisions. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing amending legislation which will avoid that or submitting cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions who can give an independent opinion?

I am very far from saying that all films legislation is of the most satisfactory character, but it may be some consolation to hon. Members to know that in any event I am the person who finally decides whether a prosecution should go forward or not, though, naturally, I listen to the advice which is tendered to me.

On a point of order. Is not what has just occurred a breach of Question time procedure in this House, Sir? The President of the Board of Trade has given a very long statement, and he knew it would be a very long one. He has cut down Question time by doing this and surely this ought not to be allowed.

It is a very large question and one which we cannot proceed to discuss at Question time.

May I ask the Minister if it is not a peculiar doctrine that people are allowed to violate the law merely because the law was passed in a Parliament with a Socialist majority? Is it not always the case that, if the criminals are consulted, they will recommend that they should not be prosecuted? Would not burglars be wise to have an advisory committee like this?

The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is not for him or for me to decide whether it is a fact that they have violated the law. That is a matter for the courts and will be decided by the courts on the prosecutions which I propose shall be instituted under the Act.

rose—

We have spent much too much time on this Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases he has decided to prosecute film quota defaulters where prosecution was not recommended by the Films Council.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he considers the views of the Films Council before instituting prosecutions under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

Under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, as amended, I am bound to consult the Films Council before taking action on certain particular provisions of the Act, including the application which an exhibitor may make that his default was due to circumstances beyond his control. I consider the Council's advice very carefully and I have found it extremely valuable, but it is entirely for me to decide whether or not a prosecution should be instituted.

Will the President of the Board of Trade, having come out from behind the screen of the Films Council and told the House that he himself takes the responsibility as to who should be prosecuted, now tell the House why he has decided that the worst law breaker of all in this respect shall not be prosecuted?

Simply because the advice I received, and I agree with it, was that a prosecution would not have succeeded.

Is the President not aware that the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, showed only one British film during the whole quota year ended September, 1951, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not sustain a prosecution on that there is no possibility of sustaining a prosecution in the case of any default? Is the President further aware that the big exhibitors stack the exhibiting representation on the Films Council, and recommend the prosecution of small exhibitors in remote parts of the country who very often have good reasons for defaulting—

We cannot have speeches.

On a point of order. Am I not entitled to conclude my question, Sir?

The hon. Member has asked one very long supplementary question already. He was proceeding to ask another. I must in fairness to other Members ask him to remember that there are other things in the world besides cinemas.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake to consult the Law Officers of the Crown about prosecutions under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

I have been consulting the Law Officers of the Crown about these prosecutions.

Did the Law Officers of the Crown not agree that there were adequate powers to institute proceedings under the Act passed by the Socialist Government?

I think I had better treat the advice which the Law Officers tendered to me as confidential, as previous Governments have done.

The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he had himself decided that a certain prosecution would not succeed. Did he have the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown in that matter?

I have had the advice of the Law Officers about all these prosecutions, and I have acted on their advice in these matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why facilities are being granted for the export of engineers' small tools to China, in view of the fact that these tools can be used for the production of armaments.

No licences for the export to China of engineers' cutting and forming tools—a description which covers all small tools of strategic importance—have been granted since October, 1951.

Does that mean that there are still in existence licences which have not yet expired, for instance, one which is due to expire on 31st August, 1952, for £5,000 worth of hacksaw blades used for making armaments, which are still in existence from that previous period? If so, will the President take them away?

The truth is that no licences have been issued since 1951. If my hon. Friend has a specific case of a substantial character in mind, perhaps he will draw it to my attention.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the excess of exports from this country to Turkey over imports from that country; and what steps are being taken to increase our imports from Turkey in such a way as to decrease our dollar purchases.

During the first five months of 1952 imports into the United Kingdom from Turkey were £4,074,000 (c.i.f.) and exports, including re-exports, were £17,491,000 (f.o.b.). The principal limiting factors in the sale of Turkish produce in the United Kingdom are the usual commercial considerations of quality and price, and I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that in our present state of deficit in the European Payments Union additional imports from Turkey would involve corresponding increases in our dollar payments to the Union.

Would not the increased purchase of dried fruit from Turkey save us from making dollar purchases of similar products?

I understand that the Ministry of Food have already bought 9,000 tons of Turkish sultanas this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, forthwith, cut the quota of 7,200 tons of foreign tomatoes which may at present be imported into the United Kingdom during July, in view of the slump in prices on the Glasgow wholesale market which denies to Clyde Valley growers a reward for their investment and labour.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend's Question of 30th June.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that we have had assurances for the last six or eight months about reviewing the quota system, and will he kindly turn to its revision instead of its review?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the tonnage of Dutch tomatoes which he estimates to be prevented from entering the United Kingdom by reason of the Dutch Government's undertaking to restrict the validity of its export licences to 24 hours.

I cannot give any quantitative assessment of the effect of this particular measure, which is one of several recently taken in the Netherlands to control exports of tomatoes to the United Kingdom.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is tension amounting almost to despair in the Clyde Valley at the failure to give them encouragement by reducing the import quota?

The only effect of the arrangement referred to in the Question would be to ensure that there was a rather more even flow of exports rather than a sudden dumping of large quantities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of Dutch tomatoes of all kinds were imported to the United Kingdom between 16th June and 30th June, 1952; and what amounts were of the lowest and of the next two qualities, respectively.

According to information received by the Ministry of Food, the answer to the first part of the Question is about 2,900 tons. The information requested in the second part is not available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is 700 tons more than in the same period last year, and that the growers are complaining very bitterly about it?

It is substantially less than the quota authorised for the period.

Is the President aware that the quota has been reduced and that the price had gone up yesterday by 1½d. per lb.; and that in any case the price of tomatoes in the wholesale market in Glasgow is always 3d. per lb. more than the price in England? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that housewives will not stand for any further increase in the price of tomatoes in order to please the vested interests of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland).

My right hon. Friend and I are informed, and will keep ourselves informed, of the situation. We will seek to hold a balance between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark.

On a point of order. May I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the allegation that I have a vested interest in this matter? I have not.

I have no wish to make any offensive remarks, but there are vested interests in South Lanark and the hon. Gentleman appears to be appeasing those interests. [HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw."] We have to bear in mind the two million people in the Clyde Valley, where there is heavy unemployment, and cheap tomatoes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Order. The words "vested interests" are a mere cant phrase. Every interest is a vested interest. I think the hon. Lady only meant that the hon. Member was advocating the interests of an industry in his constituency. If that is always to be considered reprehensible, I do not know what we shall come to.

On a point of order. May I say that I am greatly obliged to the hon. Lady for her graciousness to myself, but point out that these are the interests of very small growers and very poor people?

I think the House understands that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what contracts for textiles have been placed in this country on behalf of the United Nations relief organisation for Arab refugees.

My Department has recently been in touch with representatives of the Agency about their textile requirements. I am informed that the only textiles which they are buying in any quantity are tents and blankets. I understand that orders for some 3,300 tents have just been placed in this country on the Agency's behalf. The Agency recently invited tenders for 150,000 blankets and my Department, in collaboration with the Agency's purchasing agents in this country, notified firms and trade associations likely to be interested.

While welcoming the fact that these orders have been placed, may I ask my right hon. Friend to do what he can to ensure that this international organisation also places in this country future orders for textiles which it may require?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for the Trade Returns to distinguish between the number of horses imported from Ireland for food and for other purposes.

No, Sir. The volume of imports of horses for food is insufficient to justify raising a separate statistical heading for that class.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the first steps to be taken to prevent the illicit slaughtering of horses under disgusting circumstances should be at least to know how many are imported from Ireland and for what specific purposes they are imported?

The total value of unspecified animals imported for food amounted only to £23,172 from January to May this year for all types of animals, and so I am afraid that the total for horses, if it were separated, would be extremely small and not of very great value to my hon. Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates being able to commence the payment of compensation under the War Damage Act, 1943, Part II, Business Scheme.

I cannot at present add to the statement which was made in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question on 27th May.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine is unable to re-start his business because he cannot get paid under this scheme, and alternatively, that he has been told that if he starts his business he can get the money?

As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, a general settlement of these claims must await the fixing of a date by the Treasury under Section 85 (1) of the War Damage Act, 1943.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why tobacco imports from Turkey fell from 5,800,000 kilos in 1950 to 1,400,000 kilos in 1951.

Probably because manufacturers and merchants considered that they already held large enough stocks. They can import as much Turkish tobacco as they like, since import licences are freely granted.

Why does the President say "probably"? Why does he not find out? Is he aware that during the same period imports of American tobacco went up 50 per cent.? Obviously, this is a serious matter. Surely the trend ought to be the other way about.

I say "probably," because it is, after all, for manufacturers and merchants to make up their own minds, in those circumstances, whether they intend to import or otherwise.

In view of the great dollar difficulties from which we are suffering, cannot the President give us some more Turkish grown tobacco instead of American?

In fact, there has been a substantial rise in the total consumption of Turkish and Greek tobacco during that period.

Is not it a fact that it is neither the President nor the manufacturers who decide in this matter, but the consuming public?

Has the President satisfied himself that there is no link-up between the cigarette manufacturers in this country and the growers in America?

This Question refers to imports of tobacco from Turkey, and I have given the best answer I can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations are being held with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the supply of timber and grain; and whether he will make a statement.

In the case of timber, other than plywood, imports have now reverted to private trade and I cannot say, therefore, what negotiations may be in progress with the Russians. In the case of plywood, the Ministry of Materials have contracted for supplies for the current year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that we shall get our full requirements of foodstuffs this year?

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he will make a statement upon revision of export duties on jute and jute products by the Governments of India and Pakistan; and what effect this will have on supply and prices of jute and jute products, by his Department to industries in the United Kingdom, notably the carpet industry.

The Indian export duty on hessian (including carpet yarn) which was increased in the autumn of 1950 from £26 5s. 0d. to £112 10s. 0d. per ton was reduced to £56 5s. 0d. per ton on 18th February of this year and to £20 12s. 6d. per ton from 7th May. There were also reductions in Pakistan prices for raw jute. In accordance with the policy of selling its purchases at replacement costs the Jute Control's selling prices of the main grades of jute were accordingly reduced by £50 per ton from 2nd April and by a further £40 from 4th June. Corresponding reductions were made in the Control's selling price of imported cloth and bags, and in the prices of home produced cloth and yarn, including carpet yarn.

In view of the very damaging effects on commercial and other relations between this country and India and Pakistan caused by the imposition of export duties on essential raw materials, will my hon. Friend institute negotiations with a view to ceasing this practice of imposing these export duties both in the case of India and Pakistan?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what has been the result of the recent meeting in Rome of the International Cotton Advisory Committee in respect of achieving an international cotton agreement.

A general discussion of an international cotton agreement took place at the meeting referred to, but preparatory work had not proceeded far enough for member Governments to form even a provisional view on whether a cotton agreement would be advantageous or not. The subject is very complicated technically and closely affects the interests of a great number of countries. It was, therefore, unanimously agreed in Rome that the Standing Committee of the International Cotton Advisory Committee should study the matter further in the light of numerous points raised by member Governments and with a view to submitting, if possible, concrete proposals at a later stage. Her Majesty's Government fully concurred in this decision.

Is the Minister aware that the position was described in the "Daily Telegraph" of 16th June, as "suicidal"—the adjustment of cotton production in the world due to the smaller world export trade; and that a new conference has been called at Buxton on 17th September? May I ask whether, before that conference, a genuine attempt will be made by Her Majesty's Government to make some contribution to solving this suicidal situation?

Yes, Sir, but this is a matter which concerns not only Her Majesty's Government. Twenty-eight countries are involved, and several of those who attended this conference were unbriefed technically on the complicated matters placed before them.

Does not the Minister appreciate that the one thing the textile industry needs almost more than anything else is a stable price for raw materials? And instead of just lying down like this, will not he press the other countries to try to work out an agreement of this kind, which is vital?

Yes, Sir, but at this particular meeting several countries were unbriefed. Pakistan and Switzerland spoke on lines adverse to an agreement and only France and Italy positively supported the idea. It is a matter on which we must go carefully, although the Government are anxious to do everything possible to achieve that objective.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of the gold allocated to the dental profession including hospitals, during the year 1951, for the manufacture of dentures and for filling teeth.

The value of gold supplied from official sources for essential dental requirements in 1951 was about £200,000 at the official price.

According to my information the sum was in the region of £1 million. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that chrome cobalt alloys have been used for 20 years precisely for these purposes and that five million dentures alone were made of this substance in the United States? Must not the leak of gold be stopped and does not this substance offer the opportunity?

The information I have was the most accurate I could get. My information is that the figure was £200,000. The situation is being continually reviewed with the object of seeing whether, by the use of substitutes, that expenditure of gold can be reduced.

As my right hon. Friend and the Treasury are obviously misinformed on this point, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is taken by his Department to make sure that the grants from the public funds administered by the Arts Council are, in fact, used for the purpose for which they were given.

The Arts Council of Great Britain is an independent body established under a Royal Charter. I have no reason to think that any grants are not used for the purposes for which they are given. The accounts of the Council are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and are published in the Annual Report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his Department takes a fatherly interest in the projects which the Arts Councils sponsor, and whether he would consider trying to save the Old Vic Theatre School, which is due for extinction owing to the unwise appropriation of its funds?

There is another Question on the Order Paper relating to that matter.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why, as it was an advantage to allow Australia to build up sterling balances in this country during the war, the United Kingdom is not permitted to build up sterling balances in Australia at the present time.

If, as I understand it, the right hon. Member is suggesting that a form of credit should be granted I would refer him to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to him on 10th June.

But the Minister ought to know that that reply was entirely unsatisfactory. Is he aware that, if the Government allow the present trend to go on, Australia will become increasingly a secondary industry country, that she will produce less and less food and that there will be less and less food coming in this direction? What do the Government propose to do about it?

As I understand the right hon. Gentleman he is suggesting that, in one from or another—and the form he suggests is rather ambiguous—we should give a considerable credit to Australia in order that we might send further unrequited exports to that country. We do not think that that is practicable or desirable.

What do the Government want? Do the Government wish the supply of food from Australia to increase or diminish? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if the Government want the supply of food to increase, they must make special arrangements to allow an increasing supply of capital goods from this country to Australia—and that at once?

Of course we desire that the supply of food should increase, but there is a limit to the extent to which development in Australia can be financed by capital exports from this country, as the right hon. Gentleman should know.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of crimes, accompanied by violence, for which sentences were imposed during the year 1947 and the year 1951, respectively.

In view of the remarks made yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice on the question of corporal punishment, my Question seems to have gained special significance. Can an answer be given to it now, Sir?

No. We have not reached that Question.