asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ask the British Standards Institution to recommend to the manufacturers concerned that all highly-inflammable materials, particularly those used for children's wear, should be appropriately labelled.

It would not be appropriate for me to make such a request to the British Standards Institution; nor, I think, would the Institution find it easy by the means open to them to achieve the object that the hon. Member has in mind.

While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be easy to bring this about, may I ask whether he would consider means of making this danger a little better known to the public, because we have read lately of a great many children who have been burnt because their clothing had caught fire?

A great many textile materials are inflammable, but it is quite impossible to start labelling them as such.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, while reputable manufacturers adopt high quality standards these are entirely voluntary and that there is nothing to compel bad firms to take any notice or to protect good manufacturers from unfair competition; that this countrylags behind others in such protection both for the manufacturer and the consumer; and if he will, therefore, set up a committee to study the matter and to make recommendations.

We can best rely on the responsibility of manufacturers in general, and on the good sense of the public in exercising free choice in a competitive market, to maintain quality. I do not consider, therefore, that a committee is needed to study the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we cannot rely upon people's good sense in this matter, because they do not know what standard the goods are until they buy them, and, secondly, that many manufacturers are producing goods which are not worth buying? Would he not look at this matter again?

There is rather a difference of approach between the hon. Lady and myself on this matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give to hon. Members with regard to the marking of rayon, cotton and woollen goods with the Kite Mark guarantee of quality which, almost two years ago, he assured the House would be done as a form of assurance to the public.

I have at no time given an assurance that the Kite Mark would be applied to textiles. As I have made clear on many previous occasions, both the adoption of standards and the use of certification marks must remain voluntary.

Is it not within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance, on behalf of the rayon industry, that goods reaching this standard would be so marked?

I gave an answer to the hon. Lady on the question of rayon goods some months ago.

On a point of order. Has the House no redress at all when a Minister gives a guarantee and does not carry it out?

I gave no guarantee at any time that I would compel any industry to apply any mark.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that furniture manufacturers are giving full support to the B.S.I. certification mark scheme based on the performance tests worked out by the Furniture Development Council.

The support given to this scheme has varied as between the different types of goods, but I hope that an increasing number of manufacturers will ask for licences to apply the Kite Mark to their furniture as time goes on.

In view of the categorical assurance given the House by the Parliamentary Secretary, when the Utility Scheme was abolished last year, that he would keep in close touch with the situation, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the anxieties expressed by the furniture trade operatives' trade unions on this matter?

Yes, and I shall keep in touch with the situation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement as to how far the Argentine Government have fulfilled their promise to import £3 million worth of consumer goods from the United Kingdom; and to what trades chiefly these orders have gone.

A statement furnished by the Argentine Government shows import authorisations to a value of nearly £3·3 million for goods listed in the exchange of notes of last April. The goods include diesel chassis for buses, spares for motor vehicles, office machinery, gramophone record blanks and materials and gramophone equipment, musical instruments, hand tools and cotton thread.

How many of these licences have really become orders? If they have not become orders, have we any hope that the Argentine Government will fulfil their promises under the last Agreement?

The promise of the Argentine Government was to issue these licences, and I have no reason to think that they will not be taken up.

Would the right hon. Gentleman study the very violent criticisms made by Members of his party during the previous debate on the Argentine Agreement—I think it was on 3rd July, 1951—and consider how far those criticisms apply with even greater strength to the Agreement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made?

I will consider all criticisms, violent or otherwise, but these licences have, in fact, been issued.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of prosecutions against film quota defaulters as a percentage of the number of defaults in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953.

For the quota year October, 1949, to September, 1950, no proceedings were instituted. For the 1950–51 quota year, prosecutions were 1·29 per cent. and 0·42 per cent. of the total number of theatres which failed to achieve the prescribed quota for first features and supporting programmes respectively. For the 1951–52 quota year, proceedings will be instituted shortly in a number of appropriate cases of failure to achieve the prescribed quotas. As regards the 1952–53 quota year, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 28th January.

Would the Minister not agree that these figures are fantastically small? Is he not aware that, in the opinion of many people, this system has become almost farcical because the degree of enforcement is so small that it brings the system into disrepute?

I think the hon. Gentleman falls into the error of assuming that if a cinema fails to achieve the quota it is thereby necessarily committing an offence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the news films, "A Queen is Crowned," and "Elizabeth is Queen," were allowed to be registered under the Films Act, 1948, although they consisted mainly of newsreel material and did not employ professional actors or actresses.

As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was informed on 14th July, these two films are films to which the Cinematograph Films Acts apply and were registered as British and as exhibitors' quota films in accordance with the requirements of Sections 25 and 26 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938.

Can the President say how that was, when the Films Act specifically says that films which consist wholly or mainly of news should not be registered in this way? As neither actors nor actresses were employed but news reels only, was this not a device by the companies concerned to gain a substantial part of the Eady Fund, which ought to be allotted to independent producers?

I think that those films contained much more than news.

asked the President of the Board of Trade his estimates of the numbers of British first-feature films available, or likely to be available, in each of the quota years 1953–54 and 1954–55; and what quota he will fix for the year 1954–55.

As the hon. Member was informed on 24rh February, 1953, the producers did not provide any estimates of the likely production of films for the quota year 1st October, 1953, to 30th September, 1954. I have, however, no reason to suppose the number of films of 6,500 ft. and over to be registered during the current quota year will be less than in the preceding year. For the 1954–55 quota year the producers estimate that there will probably be available about 78 British films which are likely to secure first-feature showing.

As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) on 5th February.

As the last figure which the Minister gave showed an increase on the previous year, and as the right hon. Gentleman believes in the quota system and the importance of promoting the British film producing industry, should he not reconsider his decision? Is there not a case for a small increase in the quota next year, when more films will be available?

The figures for future production are, I think, a little uncertain, but, as far as I can judge, production is running at about the same rate and we have kept the quota at the same rate, also.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered introducing into this country legislation comparable to the anti-trust legislation of the United States of America.

No, Sir.

Now that we have had a few years' experience of the working of the Monopolies Commission, with its rather slow procedure, would not the Minister agree that, in many ways, the American system is more efficient in securing the desired objectives?

I do not think I would agree with that point of view. Both parties have always adopted the empirical approach, which is different from the American type of monopoly legislation. I have recently expanded and strengthened the Commission and I think we should wait and see how it works.

Is the Minister aware that the enforcement of anti-trust legislation in the United States costs that country millions of dollars a year, and that, however laudable the object, we could not possibly afford that method?

While not necessarily accepting that the American legislation is desirable, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that our existing legislation is really quite inadequate to deal with the problem of monopolies and restrictive practices? Can he not promise to consider improved measures?

I think that the existing legislation is adequate for the purpose for which it is designed. The House will recall that I have recently made a reference on a general practice which is a new departure, and I think we should await that report before decisions are made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what industries are now the subject of investigation by the Monopolies Commission.

Copper semi manufactures; electrical machinery; pneumatic tyres; buildings in Greater London; hard fibre cordage; linoleum; sand and gravel in central Scotland; industrial and medical gases. The Commission is also investigating, under Section 15 of the Monopolies Act, the general effect on the public interest of certain widely prevalent discriminatory practices.

Does the President consider that the Commission is now adequately manned to deal expeditiously with all these investigations?

Yes, Sir.

Has the President any idea when the report of the inquiry into buildings in Greater London will be available?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes in the policy of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to make it easier for our firms to compete in the export trade, particularly with German and Italian exporters.

I have no reason to believe that credit insurance institutions anywhere in the world provide a more helpful range of guarantees; but if the hon. Member has in mind some special extension of E.C.G.D. facilities, perhaps he will let me know.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken during 1954 to improve trade between this country and the Commonwealth; and what new agreements have been made since 31st December, 1953.

Fortunately, we do not need to make regular trade agreements with our fellow members of the Commonwealth in order to foster our trade with them. Our Commonwealth trade prospers as a result of our close political and economic ties, the longstanding preferential advantages we give to one another and the regular exchange of views on economic questions between Commonwealth Governments, as, for example, at the recent Sydney Conference.

Does not the Minister think that that is a very indefinite reply, having regard to the fact that we have just made an agreement with Japan for the inflow of goods throughout the Commonwealth as well as into this country?

The recent Agreement also provided for the outflow of a lot of goods from the Commonwealth.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now arrange for the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to tour the countries of Eastern Europe to explore the possibilities of increasing our trade with that area.

I do not think that such a visit would, at present, really serve the purpose that the hon. Member suggests.

As Ministers have now expressed themselves on several occasions as being in favour of promoting more East-West trade and trying to increase our exports, why should the Minister of State, Board of Trade, go to South America and not to these other markets, which could be very important to some of our industries?

While not ruling out the possibility, I just say that at present I do not think that it would be particularly advantageous.

As there are evidently big changes in economic policy going on in Eastern Europe, is not this an opportune moment to extend peaceful trade?

The question the right hon. Gentleman raises is on a much wider issue. We are fostering, as far as possible, visits of individual businessmen to those countries, with, I think, some success.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the new town of Glenrothes, Fife, is not at present in need of additional light industry; what new steps have been taken in the last 12 months to attract such industry to the town; and whether he will gave an assurance that in no circumstances will Glenrothes be regarded as a dormitory suburb of any neighbouring burgh.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are satisfied that there is sufficient factory employment in or near Glenrothes to meet the immediate needs of the non-mining population of the new town. I shall continue to watch the needs of the town, but I have no reason to think that Glenrothes is likely to become a dormitory town.

Is the Minister aware that, in a speech made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the new town on 14th or 15th January, he suggested that there was no likelihood of any new industry at all being established in a new town within the next six years and that, in the meantime, neighbouring burghs could absorb the surplus labour? Would not the President agree that if these developments occur the whole purpose of the New Towns Act will be nullified?

It is possible that some people in Glenrothes might work several miles away but, in general, I am watching the situation and, though I do not rule out the possibility of new industry, I am satisfied that there is no real problem at present.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there shall be no imposition of a duty to protect domestic producers of apples, whilst the total United Kingdom consumption of fresh fruit remains below pre-war level.

No, Sir. I can give no such assurance, but in considering the tariff application which has been submitted by the National Farmers' Unions, the level of supplies available to the domestic market is one of the factors that will, naturally, be taken into account.

Since the consumption of fresh fruit per head is still well below pre-war—65 lbs. compared with 78 lbs.—is it not quite unreasonable, from the point of view of the consumer, that there should be any obstruction to the importation of larger quantities of cheap fresh fruit?

That is no doubt one of the arguments which will be brought out in the inquiry that takes place.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, in the past, apple imports have been subsidised, either directly or indirectly by Governments, and that he has every reason to protect the home market, which I hope he will continue to do.

These are all relevant factors.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the 918 applications since 11th March, 1952, to import machinery duty-free, if he will now reconsider his policy, give rebates against those applications in cases where machinery has actually been imported, and grant all future applications until the Report of the Machinery Import Duties Committee is presented.

No, Sir.

Is it not quite unreasonable, in view of the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade towards the cotton trade, under the Japanese Agreement, that he should give the industry no assistance in reducing its own costs with regard to machinery?

The question of the drawback of dues is very complicated and raises a number of issues. I have referred it to a committee which is looking into it and which hopes to report in a few weeks.

Since Parliament, in 1932, laid quite clearly upon the Board of Trade the duty of pronouncing on individual applications, will the President not now agree that the Chancellor's announcement of 11th March, 1952, and his own refusal to grant rebates in all these cases since that date, is a direct and deliberate frustration of the intention of an Act of Parliament?

No, I would not agree. I think we had better await the report of the committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to tariff protection for private monopolies.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take into account, in considering tariff applications, all relevant factors, including the structure of the industry concerned.

Is the President not aware that although one-seventh of the raw material of the cotton trade now comes from rayon staple fibre, Messrs. Courtaulds are the only producers of rayon staple fibre here and they are protected by a very high tariff of 37½ per cent.? Does he think that this is in the interests of the country?

The hon. Member asked a very much wider question; that is, the general principle of protecting monopolies. The structure of a particular industry is a factor which must be borne in mind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of celluloid toys imported from Germany during 1953; and, in view of the danger to children of such inflammable toys, if he will prevent their further importation.

The value of celluloid toys imported from Western Germany in 1953 was £1,486. I could not properly use the powers under which the Board of Trade control imports for the purpose that the hon. Member has in mind, since these powers are for the purpose of safeguarding the balance of payments.

Despite the laudable object of safeguarding the balance of payments, is it not more worthwhile to save children's lives? Is it not the case that the figure which the Minister has quoted covers a very large number of toys and that parents and chief fire brigade officers are greatly concerned by the fact that children now have access to these very dangerous toys? Will he not consult the Home Secretary and consider what can be done to prevent children getting these most inflammable toys in their hands?

I am not disinterested in the lives of children, but the hon. Member will realise that the last part of his question is more appropriate for the Home Secretary than for me.

But will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the Home Secretary, as this is a matter which lies within their joint province?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question to the Home Secretary.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether rubber and rubberised piece goods, aeroplane cloth and balloon cloth are still on the list of goods banned for export to China.

The embargo on certain exports to China applies to none of these goods. Raw rubber is, however, subject to the embargo.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these goods were removed from the banned list? Is he aware that Japan removed these goods from her banned list on 15th January? On this occasion did he manage to beat the Japanese, or did he, as usual, lag behind?

None of these goods has ever been on our list.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the book value at the latest available date of the fixed assets, land, buildings, and other installations given separately, administered by the industrial estate companies and given separately for each of the Development Areas.

The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the accounts relating to services in Development Areas, published in Volume II of Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets 1952–53 (Cmd. 22–1). With permission, I will

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has now been made in providing employment at the Sunderland factory formerly occupied by Messrs. Price.

There is nothing which I can at present add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 21st January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in Sunderland are becoming increasingly disturbed at this factory remaining vacant? Will he not discuss with the firm the question of their right of assignment under the lease? We should feel more satisfied if the trading company and the right hon. Gentleman had a direct responsibility for finding a tenant for the factory.

I should be quite happy to discuss the matter with the firm, and even more happy to discuss it with the hon. Member. circulate in the Official Report an analysis, company by company, of the figures given there for fixed assets.

I await those figures, but is the right hon. Gentleman—who has examined the figures—satisfied that there is yet a reasonable relationship between the numbers employed in these factories and the amount of capital which has been invested in them?

Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the figures. We can then include this matter in our discussions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the representatives of the timber trade, the salmon packers and the fruit growers when he visits British Columbia following his opening of the Canadian International Trade Fair later this year.

I have not yet settled the details of my itinerary, but I intend to spend at least two days in British Columbia, and I certainly expect to meet representatives of these important industries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will he bear in mind that there is a traditional trade between this country and British Columbia which has extended back to the time when it was a Crown Colony?

I welcome the President's decision to visit Canada and British Columbia, and I offer him my good wishes for a successful trip—I assure him that any representative of this country will get the warmest possible welcome from the people of British Columbia—but will he also take some time off to visit industrial centres in this country, including Manchester?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the large orders placed in Britain for underwater electric cable to be laid from Vancouver Island to the mainland of British Columbia, what goods have been, or are about to be, purchased from British Columbia in 1954; and what is the £1 sterling equivalent in Canadian dollars.

I am very glad that a British firm has been awarded this important contract. Although we do not try to link particular purchases with particular sales, contracts of this kind, whether secured in British Columbia or in other parts of Canada, help us to finance our purchases from British Columbia, which are, in fact, immensely larger than her purchases from us.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still other possibilities for trade between this country and British Columbia? Will he consider the possibility of consulting the Agent-General for British Columbia, with that fact in mind, before he leaves on his Canadian tour?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much Canadian barley was imported in 1952 and 1953, respectively; and its cost.

Forty-six thousand tons of barley were imported from Canada in 1952, and 560,000 tons in 1953. The c.i.f. value was £1·4 million in 1952 and £14·3 million in 1953.

Is the Minister aware that this unnecessary increase of more than ten times the 1952 figures exceeds the total value of motor car exports to Canada, and is making it impossible for the Minister of Food to get rid of 1 million tons of this year's British barley harvest, except at a heavy loss? What is the good of asking the British motor trade to go all out for dollars and the farmers to grow more barley when we have this unco-ordinated insanity in Whitehall?

How much of the 1953 imports went for the distillation of whisky?

I could not give an accurate answer without notice.

If I put down a Question, could the Minister give me an accurate answer?

I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman means by "accurate." I can say that a great deal of whisky was made from home-grown barley.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of the total figures for 1953 he was advised, from all quarters, to import prior to decontrol in order to avoid rising prices?

I cannot give the figure, but the position is that purchasers in this country are free to buy the barley where they wish. On this occasion more barley was bought from Canada and rather less from the Soviet Union. That was the choice of the purchasers themselves. It depends on what barley is offered and at what price.

Can the President say whether these imports are one cause of the extraordinary miscalculations of the Ministry of Food—as shown in the Supplementary Estimates published today—which have gone so far to dislocate the Chancellor's Budget?

Any supplementary questions on the Estimates of the Ministry of Food should properly be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to encourage the greatest possible volume of trade within the Commonwealth generally and the purchase of Australian wheat in particular, he will consider the advisability of an import duty on foreign wheat.

No, Sir. Even if such a duty were otherwise desirable, we have undertaken to maintain entry free of duty for foreign wheat. Moreover, our commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade not to create new margins of preference would preclude such action. Imports of wheat from the Commonwealth are, of course, free of duty.

Is the Minister aware that we are importing as much wheat from the United States of America as we are from Australia, whom we urged to grow more wheat to help us to avoid an adverse dollar balance? Is it not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to see that

"…the Empire producer will have a place in the home market second only to the home producer"—

"Britain Strong and Free," page 12.

I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member is a student of serious politics. At the same time, he should consider whether this constant pressure to put duties on foreign feedingstuffs is really the way to bring down the cost of living.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he will give to British business-men in investigating the possibilities of the increased trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics officially proposed by Mr. Ivan Kabanov, the Soviet Foreign Trade Minister.

My Department was in close touch with the group of business men who have been visiting Moscow, before they left, and I shall be interested to learn, on their return, what they have to say and to give all possible advice and guidance.

Will the President bear in mind that it is of the utmost importancethat we should have the fullest publicity about the offer, together with a complete analysis by the Board of Trade, so that we may clearly distinguish between how much of it is intended as mere propaganda and how much as a serious proposal to trade, and so that there will be no doubt in the public mind that we are not turning down any serious offer of trade with Russia or overlooking the possibility of propaganda?

The Government are not turning down or accepting anything. The Board of Trade has given all the help it can to these business men on their visit to Russia, in order that they might do legitimate trade outside the strategic controls.

What were the changed circumstances between November and January? In November the Foreign Secretary condemned the business men who then wanted to make a trip to Moscow. In January the President gave his blessing to a similar party which was seeking to make the trip. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the changed circumstances which led to a change of attitude on the part of the Government?

My right hon. Friend did not condemn the business men, but the organisation which was arranging the visit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of the gross national product taken in home consumption in the years 1950, 1951. 1952 and 1953, respectively.

The percentage of the gross national product taken in personal consumption in each of the years 1950 to 1953 is as follows:

Would my hon. Friend, in his spare time, try to arrive at a determination of the optimum personal consumption out of the total national product?

I think that the optimum personal consumption is the maximum the nation can afford.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the loss of trade which he estimates would arise as a result of convertibility from the switching of orders to dollar sources in the sterling area and outside the sterling area, respectively.

I cannot make such an estimate, and there may be no such loss. It depends on how competitive we are at the time. Already over much of the field we face full competition with dollar suppliers.

Does not my hon. Friend think that a calculation of the losses that will be so suffered ought to be made before any decision about convertibility is reached?

That is certainly a point, but I think the hon. Gentleman is in error in assuming that there will be such losses. Our position vis-a-vis the dollar competitors in the world market has improved greatly as my hon. Friend can see from the recent sterling quotations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would help convertibility if we bought less wheat from the United States and more from Australia?

I am grateful for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's support for convertibility but I cannot agree with his methods.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take budgetary steps to lower the cost of living by discouraging excessive expenditure on advertising.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise how much money is being spent on advertising in this country? Does he realise that this situation will get worse if commercial television comes? Will he tell the House that the Government will start to pay attention to the public interest in these advertising questions?

I am well aware that statements of that kind are made, but I am also aware that no evidence whatever is furnished to support them.

Would my hon. Friend suggest to the Chancellor that he follow the example of some foreign countries and arrange that advertising material displayed on hoardings should carry a Revenue stamp?

I am sure my right hon. Friend is always interested in any suggestion for raising revenue.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that poster advertising has the most adverse effect both on road safety and on the tourist industry?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the revenue received from the Pool Betting Duty on the totalisators at the 15 London greyhound tracks compares in aggregate in 1953 with the overall figure for the year 1952.

The receipts in 1953 from the tracks in question were £141,468 less than in 1952, representing a drop of 4½ per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this story of diminishing returns is general at race tracks throughout the country and is almost entirely due to the discriminatory nature of the tax? Would he consult the Chancellor and make a sympathetic review for the forthcoming Budget?

I have given my hon. and gallant Friend the figures. The inferences to be drawn from them are matters for the Budget.

Why should this particular sport's totalisators suffer a 10 per cent. tax, whereas horse racing and other sports do not? Why should this working-man's sport be taxed in this way, and not the sport of kings?

If it is suggested that this working-man's sport is attacked by the original imposition of this tax, the hon. Gentleman should address his question elsewhere.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gross earned incomes required today by a married man with two children to equal, after deduction of tax, the purchasing power of gross earned incomes in 1938 of £2,000 and of £3,000 per annum.

About £9,900 and £35,500 respectively.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds dollar allowances have been refused to 14 British heart specialists who wish to attend the World Congress in Cardiology in Washington.

Our dollar expenditure has to be watched very carefully in this as in other fields. I am, however, arranging for this case to be reconsidered.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the doctors concerned wish to read papers at this conference, and that from the point of view of medical science in this country it is of the utmost importance that the doctors—the very modest number of 35, I think—should be able to go?

I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the industrial unrest in the country; the growing number of wage claims being made by the trade unions on behalf of their members to compensate for the continuing rise in the price of food; that the Government cannot give an assurance that food prices will not rise further when these are decontrolled and derationed later in the year; that coal, freight and rail fares are due to rise, bringing about a further increase in the cost of all articles and services to the general public; and whether he will make a statement on the Government's plan to control prices, reduce the cost of living and thereby bring about peace in industry.

The hon. Member has already received very full answers to Questions on these subjects from me on 19th November, and from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on 26th January and 2nd February, and I have nothing to add to these replies.

They were not answered at all. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what happened was that the Minister denied the fact that the Minister of Labour confirmed only on Tuesday of this week? I refer him to column 107 of Hansard for 9th February. It is there stated that the cost of living has gone up from 14 per cent. to 29 per cent. since January, 1951. Is it not time that the Government did something to implement their pledge to bring down the cost of living?

I can only say to the hon. Member that the facts about the cost of living are none the less facts because they are inconvenient to him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency pressed for the dismissal or resignation of three directors of the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company.

The Question would appear to refer to a matter of day-to-day management which would be for the Agency, and about which the Treasury would not normally be informed. I understand, however, that in this case the resignations were tendered on the initiative of the three directors concerned, and that their retirement from the board of the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company was at their own definite wish.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it says in "The Times" that the resignations were made by arrangement with the Agency, and that it was clearly stated in the "Daily Express" last Monday week that Mr. McKenna was quite able to do without the steel shares and that the Staveley Company was now quite prepared to do without him? Is it not quite clear that if the terms of the offer under denationalisation were not sufficiently attractive, the Agency has power to call for the resignation of these directors?

The last part of the supplementary question is, of course, quite a different question. The resignation of these gentlemen is as I have stated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that there was no dispute or quarrel about the selling of these shares that prompted the resignation of the directors concerned?

That is, of course, a totally different question.

No.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible that these three wise men from the North acted in the national interest, rather than in the interests of vested interests, hence the trouble at Staveley?

I have no doubt that these directors, like a great many other directors, acted in the national interest. I am glad to have that from the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the cost of restoring food subsidies so as to bring food prices down to the level at which they stood in October, 1951.

In order so to adjust the subsidies as to restore food prices to the level ruling in October, 1951, it would be necessary to raise their cost to between £700 and £800 million a year.

Is not this £700 million or £800 million the amount which is now being paid directly by consumers out of their own pockets? Does not that show that the cost of living on subsidised foods alone has risen by nearly 8s. a week?

The hon. Member omits from that calculation the important fact that much more of the foods then subsidised are now being eaten.

Would my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the reduction in quantities of food which would bring us down to the subsistence level of October, 1951?

If my hon. Friend will put that question down, I will do my best to make the necessarily somewhat complex calculations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the creation of some permanent machinery for economic co-operation within the Commonwealth was discussed at the recent meeting at Sydney.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 4th February.

Is there not some machinery for following up the decisions made at the Conference—for instance, those on capital development? If so, what is that machinery? I am not asking for a secretariat, but there must be some machinery.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman, on this very important point, that there is a highly developed machinery for following up the conclusions of the Commonwealth Conference. The addition of new machinery might obstruct, rather than enhance, the rate of progress.

If there is such machinery, why did it not discuss the Japanese Trade Agreement? Has it not discussed anything about the surplus wheat in Australia?

Every relevant matter was discussed. As far as the Japanese Trade Agreement is concerned, I am sure that any discussion would have borne out the decision which the House reached yesterday.

Would the hon. Gentleman not tell us a little more about this machinery? Is there some new committee which has been set up in London or is he referring simply to the Commonwealth Liaison Committee? At what sort of level are the people who attend these committee meetings?

The Question referred to permanent machinery for economic co operation. I think the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps better aware than anyone in the House that the machinery for economic co-operation between the countries of the sterling area, through the normal channels, is extremely highly developed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have several times expressed the view that I thought there ought to be more machinery than existed, at any rate, two years ago, and that I have repeatedly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers what has been done about this? I am seeking some further information on the point. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me?

The present Government are more concerned with action than with machinery.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal of the British Transport Commission to increase the use of diesel-engine locomotives on the railways for the purpose of attracting passenger traffic from road to rail; if he is aware that when diesel fuel oil is used on railways it pays no tax, whereas when used in road vehicles it is charged a duty at the rate of 2s. 6d. a gallon; and what action he is taking to correct this anomaly.

I am aware that the British Transport Commission has recently announced plans to extend the use of trains running on diesel fuel, partly in substitution for existing steam services. As heavy oils were made dutiable when used as road fuel because they then replace dutiable light oils, and are not dutiable when used for other purposes, their use by British Railways is not, in my view, an anomaly.

Why should tax be paid on the fuel of a passenger road vehicle when no tax is paid on the fuel of another vehicle, also carrying passengers? Is not that prejudicial to the use of the road?

Because for many years the duty on heavy diesel oil has been applied only when used on the roads—that is to say, in direct competition, in road use, with petrol.

Is it not a fact that whereas the road user has his permanent way paid for by the State and the local authorities, the railways have to maintain their own permanent way?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow teachers a rebate of Income Tax for coal, oil or other heating used in their houses in connection with meetings, classes, etc.

I am not certain what kind of meetings and classes the hon. Member has in mind. If he will send me particulars of any cases in which the point has arisen, I shall be happy to look into them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a problem in all rural areas where schoolmasters do a great deal of public work outside their routine teaching work and where they have to heat rooms for classes and meetings of committees, for instance? I will certainly send the right hon. Gentleman some particulars.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the general principles governing the supply of dollars to such centres of entrepôt trade as Aden and Hong Kong.

Dollars for entrepôt or merchanting trade in goods to be resold outside the sterling area are provided from official sources only if dollars are being received in payment. In Hong Kong there is also a free exchange market in which residents are able to purchase dollars which are privately held against local currency.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if Aden were allowed to do greater trade in dollars it might earn considerably more than it does now? Are not such places in danger of losing trade to neighbouring ports outside the sterling area, through being unable to provide dollars?

We are anxious to expand the entrepôt trade in Aden for dollars against dollars. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of difficulties arising, I shall be very glad to examine it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what money has been made available to the Arts Council for the acquisition of the assets of ballet companies in 1952–53.

None, Sir.

Would I be right in assuming that grants-in-aid are not normally used for the purchase of ballet companies?

There are exceptions, but normally conditions are not attached to the grant-in-aid.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total grants in aid since the setting up of the Arts Council made available to individual ballet companies and opera companies.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFICIAL REPORT.

As the International Ballet Company has now been put off the road, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I, at any rate, do not think that grants-in-aid should be used for the creation of monopolies for either ballet or opera?

I will note my hon. Friend's views.

As the Treasury reserves the right to examine and generally scrutinise the annual budget of the Arts Council before it allows the Council to get on with expenditure, can some attention be drawn to the mining and other industrial communities, which never seem to get the services of the Arts Council in providing ballet? I am thinking of the small industrial communities.

That is largely a matter for the Arts Council, on whom falls the main responsibility of allocating grants. I am sure that it will pay due attention to the point of view which the hon. Member has expressed.