asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why he proposes to make a free gift of money to the Maldive Islands for file first time next financial year.

The Government of the Maldive Islands, which are under the protection of Her Majesty, have applied for assistance in a period of acute economic distress. The matter has been investigated on the spot by the Economic Adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Colombo, who has reported that the most urgent requirement is the rehabilitation of the fishing industry, on which the whole Maldivian economy depends.

In accordance with the recommendations of the report it is proposed, if the necessary Supply is granted by the House, to make a grant of £8,000 this year towards the purchase of materials and equipment for that purpose.

Is this group of islands coming on the "dole" permanently, like many others?

No, Sir. They are undergoing a period of economic distress, because the fishing industry has not been very successful. It is proposed to use part of the £8,000 grant to provide an auxiliary engine for one of their larger fishing vessels, and we hope that in time they may again become self-supporting.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what financial assistance is to be given to Bechuanaland for economic and social development.

With my noble Friend's approval, the Resident Commissioner recently issued a statement on this subject in Bechuanaland. Since it is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The assistance promised in the statement is, of course, subject to the approval of Parliament in the normal way.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether this assistance includes, for example, the implementation of the cattle ranching scheme recommended by the Gaitskell Mission?

The assistance will go to increase the total revenue of the Protectorate. The exact amount and the fields in which it will be spent are still under consideration.

Following is the statement

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has examined the Bechuanaland Protectorate's present ability to provide from its own revenues an adequate standard of services. They have concluded that, until the Protectorate's revenues improve, financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government will be needed.

Since 1940, the Protectorate has met the cost of ordinary administration from its own resources. It has, during this period, enjoyed assistance under Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, amounting to approximately £1,500,000 for development purposes. But the funds available have proved insufficient for the establishment and maintenance of adequate government services. The satisfactory administration of the vast and sparsely inhabited areas of the Protectorate, 275,000 square miles with a population of only 300,000 is costly and clearly beyond the Protectorate's own resources until further development, which unfortunately can only be very long term, leads to expansion of revenue.

Her Majesty's Government, recognising this, have agreed that the Protectorate should receive sufficient assistance for as long as may be necessary to enable adequate standards of administration to be maintained. It is hoped that funds from colonial development and welfare sources may be available to enable development work on water supplies, the Protectorate's greatest economic need, to be speeded up and expended both in existing settled areas and in the Kalahari (as recommended in the recently published Report of the Gaitskell Mission); and also for geological survey, improvement of agriculture and animal husbandry, tsetse and swamp control, grain storage, secondary education, etc. Grants-in-aid, the amount of which will be determined annually, will assist the Protectorate to undertake much needed expansion of its administrative services. Present proposals by the Administration include a programme of public works, mainly buildings and roads, of the order of £1 million over the next four to five years. The emphasis of additional expenditure will be mainly on activities and projects calculated to expand the Protectorate's economy, thus enabling it, in its turn, to afford further expansion of social services.

The programme for additional expenditure on administrative services is now under examination by Her Majesty's Government. The first phase of the proposed programme is already reflected in the Protectorate's 1954–55 budget, which provides for expenditure of approximately £950,000 against revenue of £830,000. This immediate deficit will be met from the Protectorate's own surplus balances, standing currently at £270,000. In 1955–56 when expenditure on the next phase of the programme, which may amount to about £1¼ million, is likely to exhaust the remaining surplus balance, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to make such grant-in-aid as may be necessary to enable whatever programme is finally agreed to be carried out.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that members of the public, in many cases, are unable to obtain satisfaction from retailers when goods infringe the Merchandise Marks Acts; and whether he will give an assurance that in such cases he is prepared to look into the matter and, if necessary, institute proceedings.

No, Sir, I am not aware that members of the public cannot obtain satisfaction from retailers when they have legitimate claims for breach of warrranty or otherwise; the Board of Trade cannot help persons to pursue their civil remedies. Where there is evidence of an offence under the Merchandise Marks Acts, it is open to anyone to prosecute.

The cases in which the Board of Trade will prosecute are, in accordance with regulations made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, such as appear to them to affect the general interests of the country, or of a section of the community, or of a trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who buy goods which are not satisfactory are not likely to gain much help from that answer? Would he tell the House how he ties up that reply with the letter he sent to me on 15th January last, in which he said that the Board of Trade has power under the Merchandise Marks Acts to institute proceedings against persons who infringe the Acts, where the general interest of the country, or a section of the community, or a trade, merited it? Who is to take action on the part of the shoppers, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that some shops do not exchange goods which are not satisfactory?

If the hon. Lady will read HANSARD tomorrow she will see that I have repeated almost exactly the words used in the letter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the sample of poultry feathers sent to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South was removed from a pillow made by the Downland Bedding Company, Limited, of Liverpool, London and Glasgow; that the descriptive leaflet contained in the cellophane wrapping of the pillow is illustrated with the caricature of a duck and infers that these pillows are stuffed with down; and if, therefore, he will initiate a prosecution for misleading description under the Merchandise Marks Acts.

No, Sir. The hon. Member did not send me the pillow or leaflet from which the sample of feathers was taken, so that I could not investigate that particular case.

On a point of order. Is the Minister entitled to say that I have not sent something to him when I have done so, Sir?

The hon. Lady may have sent it, but the right hon. Gentleman may not have received it.

Is the President aware that I have a letter from him, dated 19th March, addressed to my private secretary, which I have not got, which says:

"Will you please let Miss Burton know that I received her letter containing a sample of poultry feathers?"

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with that letter, I gave him the name and address of the manufacturer, and I told him that, if he wished to have the leaflet, he could have it? Is he further aware that the chairman of the company came to the House of Commons last week and tried to see me, and that he has now withdrawn the pillows?

If I may say so, that seems to be a very happy conclusion to this business.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice is given by his Department to those members of the public who write to him about breaches of the Merchandise Marks Acts.

The reply must depend on the nature of the inquiry.

Instead of giving constant encouragement to traders to produce goods which are not satisfactory, would not the President explain why, on 2nd March, in column 992 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said he would be prepared to consider any matter put to him by Members of Parliament when they thought that proceedings should be instituted under the Act? Would he tie up that statement with the answer given this afternoon in a case where I sent him details and he refused even to look into them?

All have said this afternoon is that we cannot carry standardisation too far. Hon. Members would be a little hurt if I returned the same answer to every inquiry.

Is the President aware that, in the matter of the pillows, in which I gave him the details and the name of the firm, he refused even to look into it?

The hon. Lady is asking me to give standardised advice to every inquiry, but the advice must surely depend a little on the inquiry itself.

Is it not evident that the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) is not only trying to give my right hon. Friend the feathers, but the bird as well?

Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade is prepared to prosecute, at least in certain cases? Is he aware that it is the desire of the trade associations and many reputable firms that the Board should undertake these prosecutions?

I have already stated in answer to earlier Questions the situation in which the Board of Trade considers prosecution.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of prosecutions in 1950 and 1951 under the Merchandise Marks Acts were instituted by his Department.

Statistics of prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts are only available for England and Wales. These do not include any prosecution by the Board of Trade in 1950 and 1951.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the hon. Lady was pressing his predecessor at that time?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the hon. Lady.

Since, in 1950–51, the public had the protection of the Utility scheme, and since in all cases of complaint about the Utility scheme, the Board of Trade was very active in prosecuting inquiries, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when the Board will discharge its responsibilities to the public in this matter of prosecution? Does he realise that the advice given to ordinary members of the public, that they should seek advice from their solicitors or institute proceedings themselves, is thoroughly meaningless when the real responsibility lies on the Board of Trade to undertake the prosecution?

This Question refers to a previous period. The previous Government, in fact, instituted only one prosecution.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on Messrs. Price Tailors, Limited, Sunderland Trading Estates factory.

No, Sir. I cannot at present add to the answer which I gave on 21st January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is causing real anxiety in Sunderland? Will he take exceptional measures to try to get a tenant for this factory?

It is causing some concern to me, but if the hon. Gentleman would have a word with me or with the Parliamentary Secretary, we should be very happy to discuss the matter with him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards unemployment areas as distinct from Development Areas.

The policy towards these areas of relatively high unemployment remains unchanged. The Board of Trade do what they can to encourage industrial development, and these areas receive equal consideration with Development Areas when Government orders are placed.

Would not the President agree that, where we have these areas with a very high percentage of unemployment, such as exists in my constituency, special measures should be put into operation immediately to alleviate the position? Is it true, as I understand, that there are no special measures which the right hon. Gentleman can take?

I should be happy to consider any suggestions which the hon. Gentleman might wish to place before me.

Is the President satisfied that the present methods are producing satisfactory results?

I think that those methods of dealing in a special way with areas where there is unemployment are sound, and that there is a contribution, though a limited one, which they can make to this particular problem.

Will not the President agree that the real answer to the problem in Anglesey and in the part of Lancashire which I represent is for his Depart- ment to give attention to the proper working of the Distribution of Industry Act, which is not working properly at present?

I quite agree that the Distribution of Industry Act has an important bearing upon these matters, but, of course, this is not a Development Area, but one in which there is some unemployment.

Is it not true that unemployment figures today are lower than they have been since the end of the war?

Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the unemployment figures are reasonably satisfactory at present, but the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) was concerned with a particular area which has a special problem.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all goods entering this country from Japan shall be stamped "Made in Japan."

At present, more than half the imports from Japan, for which quotas have been agreed, are subject to orders under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and must be marked either "Foreign Made" or "Made in Japan." This Act does not empower me to impose such requirement except after public inquiry and by orders nominating particular goods. Trading interests, wishing to secure compulsory marking, should therefore apply for an order to be made.

In that case, might not my right hon. Friend seek powers? Does he not agree that the marking "Foreign" on many of these goods is far too uncertain? Would he not also agree that in quality-goods Japan would not suffer from the use of the mark, because the term "Made in England" has been an asset to the sale of our goods abroad?

I have told my hon. Friend what powers exist under legislation today; the initiative, at the moment, still rests with those interests which wish to have markings, who must apply for an order for them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Japanese elastic webbings of equal quality are being offered in Australia at prices from 10 per cent. to 33 per cent. below United Kingdom prices; and what steps he is taking to assist the United Kingdom exporters.

I have seen such reports. But our exporters have been doing well in the Australian market. There is no Customs duty on the United Kingdom product and, as from today, there is no quota restriction either. But the Japanese product is charged a duty of 12½ per cent. and remains subject to quota.

If I send evidence to my right hon. Friend from exporters of elastic webbings to Australia—I recognise that he has no power in the matter—will he use what influence he has to help them in that market?

I will certainly consider any representations which my hon. Friend wishes to make.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, during Dr. Adenauer's recent visit to Turkey, an agreement was reached for the payment of Turkish commercial debts to German exporters; and whether, in view of the fact that British exporters are owed already £10 million by Turkish importers, he will give an assurance that he will make a further effort to secure similar conditions for British citizens.

I am assured that the agreement in principle which has been reached between the German and Turkish Governments implies no special arrangements for the settlement of debts due to German exporters.

As regards the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government are working with their partners in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation to reach a concerted solution of the problem of Turkish commercial debts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that conditions in Turkey are most unsatisfactory, that the Export Credit Guarantees Department is not in a position to back exporters, and that many valuable exports which could go from this country to Turkey are, therefore, being lost?

There are problems concerned with trade with Turkey, as there are with other countries, but this refers to the payment of past debts, and I think the answer covers the point raised in the Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he refuses to consider chartering the s.s. "Gothic" for use as a floating shop window for advertising British productions overseas.

I am advised that such a scheme raises many practical difficulties which greatly outweigh any possible advantages; it is unlikely that exporters would support the exhibition. In any event, I understand that the s.s. "Gothic" could not easily be made available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not basing his information on something which is out of date? The Ramsden Report of 1946 was on an entirely different matter. Surely he would be prepared to ask for details of proposals in order to consider them before he was so discourteous as to say, "No, I will not consider it at all."

I have given careful consideration to this proposal, which is in line with quite a number of other proposals of the same type which have been raised from time to time. I have looked at it carefully and I am satisfied that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

The right hon. Gentleman says that other proposals of this type have been made. Have any of these proposals had the publicity value of the "Gothic"? When he says it is not available, may I remind him that there is no need to have the "Gothic" at the beginning of the year; it could be later in the year to advertise next year's B.I.F., which needs it.

I understand that the hon. Member has already stated his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I think he had better take that course.

I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity and I hope that this time I shall not be counted out by the teetotal fanatics.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement in respect of the outcome of the official discussions with Mr. Harold Stassen, director of the United States Foreign Operations Administration, concerning East-West trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the talks with Mr. Harold Stassen on the subject of East-West trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what the result has been of this week's discussions with French and United States representatives on the subject of East-West trade.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday on this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman will have to do very much better before long. Does he realise that, while we are leaning backwards to play the game, the businessmen of other friendly countries are not playing the game? Did he tell Mr. Stassen when he was here that many people are "fed up" with America preaching to us and, at the same time, strangling our attempts to sell our products in America?

I made a very full statement on this subject yesterday and I do not think I can usefully add to it.

Since that full statement yesterday conveyed absolutely nothing to the House, and since the right hon. Gentleman ducked all the supplementary questions addressed to him, would he now tell the House, in answer to the two questions which I addressed to him yesterday, whether he thinks it will be possible for him, as a test case, to allow more machine tools to go to the Soviet Union before the time for confirming those contracts expires?

I answered a supplementary on that question from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. If he did not understand the answer, nevertheless I think the House understood it. It was to the effect that I could not enter into details of these lists until I had had discussions on security considerations with our allies in Europe.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand even yet that what my right hon. Friend is pressing him about is dates? It will not be the slightest good if he pursues these conversations and reaches a favourable conclusion about them after the expiry date has passed.

I think the House will appreciate that what I have to consider here is not dictated by whether an order is placed by Russia or not, but by the security considerations involved.

We understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he will not be able to say what will be agreed between the Western nations for some two or three months, a time which we consider excessive in relation to this problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman not at least tell us, about these discussions, in which we understand that Her Majesty's Government are taking an initiative with proposals—as the Prime Minister told us on 24th February—whether the Government are proposing some relaxation in machine tools?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study the statement which I made yesterday he will find full answers to these questions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of his promise to consider the publication in a few weeks' time of the report on the duty-free entry of machinery into the United Kingdom, if he is now in a position to publish that report, and to state what action he proposes to take upon it.

I have now received the committee's report. The subject is, as the report recognises, difficult and complicated, and I am considering the report in detail. I am not yet in a position to say when it will be published or what action will be taken on it.

While I do not wish to be unreasonable to my right hon. Friend, may I remind him that it is two months since he said that he was considering the issue of this report? This is of great importance to the importers of machinery which will be used to produce exports. Will he please make a decision quickly?

I had not got the report two months ago. I appreciate the importance of this matter and I am pressing on with its consideration with others—for a number of Departments are involved—as quickly as I can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement about the government's intentions with regard to the Industrial Organisation and Development Bill.

Yes, Sir. The immediate occasion for the introduction of this Bill was a request from the Joint Clothing Council for a levy which could not be imposed under existing legislation. It is now clear that there is no general support within the clothing industry for the Bill at present before Parliament, and in these circumstances Her Majesty's Government have decided not to proceed with the Measure.

Since it is clear that this Bill, such as it was, was dropped only because of strong representations from the right hon. Gentleman's own back benchers and from certain industrial organisations which conspired to boycott the original Industrial Development Act, would the right hon. Gentleman take it from us that, while his own supporters were suggesting that it was a Socialist Measure, we did not consider it to be a Socialist Measure but a very poor thing which we should just have supported? He can at least be satisfied that we should not have welcomed it as a Socialist Measure?

That, again, seems a very happy outcome. We seem to be unanimous on the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences to export goods to Hungary he has received during the three most recent convenient statistical periods.

In the three quarters from 1st July, 1953, until 31st March, 1954, 50, 49 and 55 respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many deputy chairmen of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission have been appointed under the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1953.

None, Sir.

As it is several months since the Bill was passed, and as the intention of the appointment of the deputy chairman was to speed up the working of the Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there has been this extraordinary delay?

I made it plain in the debate on the Bill that I should not appoint deputy chairmen until I had given an opportunity for the enlarged Commission to settle down in its work. I do not by any means rule out the appointment of deputy chairmen, but I want the Commision to have a little further experience of working together.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received against the burden which the Entertainments Duty imposes on the cinematograph industry; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the burden.

My right hon. Friend has received representations concerning the Entertainments Duty on cinema admissions from trade associations and a number of film exhibitors. But the hon. and learned Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

While I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement, will he not reply to the polite request as to the nature of the representations which have been made—not merely the number but the nature of the representations—and what action he proposes to take?

The nature of the representations, of course, is that they would like to pay less tax. To respond to the further part of the supplementary question would be to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received in respect of the effect of the entertainments tax upon British cinemas.

About 130.

Is it possible that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer sits down on Sunday afternoon to write out his Budget proposals he will pay particular attention to the case of the smaller cinemas, which are very much affected by this tax?

My right hon. Friend will, as always, pay special attention to all relevant considerations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the present unfair and discriminatory rate of the Entertainments Duty; and if he will consider reducing the duty and making all types of entertainment liable to the same flat rate.

While not necessarily accepting any of the implications contained in this Question, I none the less will not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid in interest upon the National Debt in the years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1953; and how much this was per head of the population in each of those years.

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

In view of the very heavy burden of the National Debt, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are taking to reduce it?

The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of discussing that matter in the near future.

Following is the information:

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring together the interested associations with a view to sponsoring the setting up of a Sports Council to encourage sport and assist British sport in world events on the same lines as the Arts Council sponsors artistic development; and if he will introduce legislation to enable him to make a substantial grant to this council which shall also raise funds and administer both the Exchequer grant and those funds so as to stimulate interest in sport and assist British sportsmen in world events.

Reductions have been made in recent years in the Vote of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for direct assistance to sport and physical recreation, as well as in the grant-earning expenditure of local authorities for the same purpose. There must be some consistency of policy in these matters, and in view of the continued need for economy in public expenditure my right hon. Friend cannot under present circumstances entertain the hon. Member's proposal.

When you come to make allowances, Mr. Speaker, that seems a sympathetic reply. If it is I would ask, can we, when present circumstances change, have some more sympathy extended?

I would not differ from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the reply, but, as he will appreciate, the need for economy in public expenditure at present is singularly important.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which applicant has been allotted most shares by the Iron and Steel Realisation Agency in the United Steel companies.

It would be contrary to practice for me to give information of this kind. The company's register of members will, of course, show the shares now held by each member.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report in the Press to the effect that the largest buyer of United Steel shares was the Co-operative Insurance Society, and would he not agree that this is very satisfactory evidence of the faith of the Co-operative movement in the wisdom and enduring nature of the policy of the Government?

For the reasons I have given I cannot comment on that statement, other than to observe that if it were true it would be consistent with very sensible policy in the organisation concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the memorandum on football pools sent to him by the Association Football Players' Union; and if he will now introduce legislation to control these bodies.

As the memorandum relates to the taxation of football pools, I must ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anticipated yield for the year to 5th April, 1954, from the football pools betting duty compared with £20,400,000 in 1952–53 and £17,600,000 in 1951–52; and how the revenue trend for football pools betting duty compares with the revenue trend for Entertainments Duty on football for the same period of three years.

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

Following are the figures:

Note. —Receipts of Entertainments Duty were affected by increases in duty from 13th September. 1952, and the new exemption for amateur sports from 27th April, 1953.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what price basis private importers will buy grapefruit from the United States of America under the provisions of Section 550 of the United States Mutual Security Act; and to what extent the price will be affected by any form of subsidy.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 18th March to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet able to state the cost to public funds of the Holt v. the Estate Duty Office case; and if he is intending to set aside money for this purpose in the coming year for similar cases.

The information asked for in the first part of the Question is still not available. The Inland Revenue estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1955, were recently presented and include, as in previous years, a sum for law charges.

Will my right hon. Friend take suitable action to prevent cases similar to these from arising in the future?

I am all against representatives of the Government in the courts losing their cases.

Could not my right hon. Friend give us an estimate of the cost of these two cases to public funds?

The reason why the figures are not yet available is that the other party to the case has not put in its bill of costs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take in the case of Japanese petrol lighters which were impounded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on the ground that they contravened the Merchandise Marks Acts.

I assume the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the recent case where proceedings were taken in respect of some Japanese petrol lighters stolen from a consignment in transit through the United Kingdom. I understand that the lighters, which had been detained by the police, have now been released. At no time were they impounded by the Customs.

Seeing that these lighters not only apparently contravened the Merchandise Marks Acts, but were described by the learned magistrate in the case as obscene publications because of certain pictures on the outside of the lighters—details of which I shall not go into—will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as are open to him to ensure not only that these lighters are not sold in this country but are not reshipped, as was originally intended, to the Colonies?

As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, it is not the practice to proceed on the basis of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Acts in the case of goods that are only in transit through this country, unless there is a direct conflict with British interests. The question of obscenity—and I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman's example and not go into details—is, of course, a matter for consideration by the prosecuting authorities, who, in this case, were not the Customs.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider extending the system of Pay As You Earn payments of Income Tax to other Income Tax groups now not covered by pay-as-you-earn, who eventually find themselves unable to pay their Income Tax.

Such an extension would require legislation, and any question of legislating on this matter must wait until the Royal Commission has reported.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that something more is not required here as the Income Tax is slowly but surely forcing these people into very great difficulties? Ought not some different arrangement to be made?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are real difficulties and I hope that the Royal Commission may be able to help us in connection with it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Royal Commission is likely to report? For the past three years all manner of worthy projects have been turned aside from that Box with the same answer, "We are waiting for the Royal Commission's report." Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Royal Commission will report soon?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

Meanwhile, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very unsatisfactory for everybody concerned that these people should be owing large amounts to the Inland Revenue for long periods?

I am not quite certain whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring to as "these people," but I would agree with him that it is unsatisfactory that anybody should owe money to the Inland Revenue for any period.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the public concern over the large sums of money owing to the Inland Revenue by professional entertainers; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the Income Tax amounts owing do not accumulate to sums of money which cannot, or will not, be paid.

The Inland Revenue have continuously under review the question of the most effective and convenient means of assessing and collecting tax due from this and all other professions and occupations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I expect he is—that a great deal of public anxiety is caused when, periodically, certain people are brought to the courts or go bankrupt and it turns out that they owe thousands of pounds to the Inland Revenue? Why do the Government allow these debts to accumulate over the years? Surely earlier action should be taken to avoid making these people go bankrupt by making them pay only occasionally, when it is thought, perhaps mistakenly, that they can afford to do so.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is highly undesirable for incidents to occur such as those that, I have no doubt, he has in mind and that have been referred to in the Press recently. We are very anxious to prevent cases of this sort from arising. There are very real administrative difficulties in handling the category of cases the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we shall certainly do our best to see that they do not get away with it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing his Budget statement he will give special attention to the repayment of post-war credits to those who are suffering from chronic and incurable diseases such as pneumoconiosis

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

Would the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact that there would be no administrative difficulty about this if he were to bring his mind to bear on the problem, and that the needs of these sufferers really are very distressing to all of us on both sides of the House, who have representations made to us continually about them?

I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend's attention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of post-war credits; how much has been repaid, giving yearly repayments; how much remains to be paid, giving separate yearly liabilities; and the number of individual entitlements.

The answer to the first part of the Question is about £800,000,000; £216,000,000 has been repaid, and £20,000,000 set off against arrears of tax. Consequently, about £564,000,000 remains to be paid, and is, under the existing law, now being repaid at an annual rate of about £17,000,000. There are about 10¼ million holders of these credits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will be expecting his right hon. Friend to speed up that process next Tuesday?

I note the hon. Member's statement of his view.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has made to the representations made to him by the Association Football Players' Union, that the attendances at football league matches have fallen this season as compared with last season, due to the financial burden so many clubs have to bear.

The union has been informed that their representations will be borne in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allocate a percentage of the taxation imposed upon football pools, so that the league clubs upon whose fixtures the pools are organised derive substantial benefit.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be quite impossible for the pools to continue if they were not based on the fact that we have footfall played by league teams throughout the country? Is it not morally reasonable that the clubs should ask that grants should be made out of the tax to them, so that they can go on acting as a milch cow for the right hon. Gentleman and he can go on getting money?

I agree that it would be difficult to have football pools without football, but there are very real difficulties of both principle and of practice in allocating particular sources of revenue to particular objects of expenditure.

Is not the answer to this problem to cancel the Entertainments Duty on football matches and to make good any slight loss of revenue by increasing commensurately the football pools betting duty?

I have heard my hon. Friend express that view before, but this is certainly not the time of year when it would be expedient for me to speculate on it.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me about difficulties, will he please bear in mind that any such difficulties are overcome in Sweden, for instance, where they do allocate money in such cases?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the internal purchasing power of the £ now is, taking the figure for October, 1951, as £1.

The internal purchasing power of the £ sterling is estimated, on the basis of the latest figures, to have been 19s. 2d. in February, 1954, compared with 20s. in October, 1951.

The calculation is based on the price index for all consumer goods and services between 1951 and 1953, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

Does not the hon. Gentleman now admit that we are still l0d. in the £ worse off than we were in October, 1951?

All these figures show that the £ sterling has been much more stable under the present Administration than under the last.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate purchasing power of the £ today as compared with 20s. in 1935.

Eight shillings and one penny. This estimate is based on the Ministry of Labour's cost-of-living index between 1935 and 1938, the index covering all consumer goods and services between 1938 and 1953, and the interim index thereafter.

Do I take it that if the Surtax figure of £2,000 which was in vogue in 1935 were imposed at the same value today, it would be about £5,000? Will the Economic Secretary pass this information on to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

All I should like to admit is that £2,000 todays buys a good deal less than it did then.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish the uplift which is coupled with the incidence of Purchase Tax on cutlery.

My right hon. Friend is considering the question of uplift as applied to the various articles chargeable with Purchase Tax.

Although we appreciate what the Government have done in taking off Purchase Tax will my right hon. Friend not consider the suggestion contained in the Question, as it would help the industry, which is still losing skilled men and finding difficulty in getting orders?

I realise the importance of this matter both generally and to the cutlery industry particularly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many firms registration for Purchase Tax was withdrawn during the year ended 31st December, 1953; and in how many cases it was withdrawn because of change of address, alteration of legal status and evasion or default of Purchase Tax payments, respectively.

Purchase Tax registration was cancelled in 6,679 cases during the year ended 31st December, 1953. But this figure includes the many cases where a registration is cancelled on a change of address or legal status and reissued.

I regret that the particulars asked for in the second part of the Question are not available.

In view of the fact that in a debate on the Adjournment on this subject, my right hon. Friend stated that withdrawals had been made because of the loss of revenue, will he look into this matter and give the figure which is asked for? It is very pertinent.

I know my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. The difficulty is that while I can give the total figure, it is not possible to break it down in accordance with registrations which are withdrawn.

On what authority of Parliament have these cancellations been made?

I should prefer my hon. Friend to put that Question down, but I would hazard that Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1944, is the answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much was lost to the Exchequer during the year ended 31st December, 1953, as a result of default or evasion of payment by firms registered for Purchase Tax;

(2) from how many manufacturers and wholesalers, respectively, being registered for Purchase Tax the Revenue sustained loss because of evasion or default during the year ended 31st December, 1953.

I regret that the detailed particulars asked for are not available, but the total amount of Purchase Tax formally written off during the year ended 31st March, 1953, on losses actually proved was £220,600. The total number of registered traders involved in this amount was 208. This does not, of course, indicate the full extent of the loss, known and unknown.

Will my right hon. Friend please look at this matter again and try to give these figures? There has been a considerable number of withdrawals of registration and the House and the country are entitled to know how many have been made and the reasons.

I will certainly try to give my hon. Friend the figures that I can find, but he must not ask me to invent them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the anomaly whereby members of the Diplomatic Corps must pay full duty on all British spirits they buy in this country but can and do import under diplomatic privilege foreign spirits duty-free, he will consider, in their interests and the interest of the British trade, granting remission of Excise Duty on spirits sold to accredited members of the Diplomatic Corps in this country.

No, Sir. Diplomatic privileges have traditionally never included relief from Excise Duty and I can see no sufficient reason for departure from this tradition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements to establish a branch of Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Glasgow.

I am afraid not. I do not think that such a branch would pay its way and I am satisfied that the public need is adequately met under present arrangements, which include both the appointment of a principal Glasgow bookseller as agent and the sending of supplies to other leading booksellers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present address of the agency is not known to one person in 10,000 in Glasgow? Is he further aware of the inconvenience caused to journalists, teachers, professional men, commerce and industry? Will he reconsider the matter very earnestly?

I am anxious to be as helpful as I can in this matter. I will certainly look into the hon. Member's suggestion that the address of the particular agent is insufficiently well-known, and will see whether I can do anything about it.

Does it not seem strange to the right hon. Gentleman that the second city of the Empire has not an office of this kind when smaller towns have an office? It surely does not depend upon whether the office pays?

There is no question but that the importance of this great city is fully appreciated. The grounds on which it is decided whether an office is paying its way have to take into account wider circumstances than of the individual city.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the right policy is to have less Government paper to sell?

To some considerable extent we are meeting the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the population of Glasgow is 1,163,000, whereas the population of Birmingham is 1,168,000, and that the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is, therefore, totally incorrect?

I am not going to get involved in that brawl.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the circumstances that determine whether a regional branch or an area office will be instituted? Is he aware that 11 other towns in the country having only from a quarter to a half of the population of Glasgow have actually two offices while Glasgow has not one?

The next Question, in the name of the hon. Member, covers this point and it will be more convenient to answer it there.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the considerations and conditions which apply in establishing area branches of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Branch offices of Her Majesty's Stationery Office have been established in towns where the volume of business, both in respect of supply to Government Departments and sale to the public in the town itself and in surrounding areas, makes it possible to run them without imposing an additional burden on the taxpayer. In other large towns, leading booksellers are appointed as agents for the sale of official publications.

asked the Prime Minister what answer he has given to the United States representations that Her Majesty's Government's proposed list of articles for East-West trade should be reduced.

I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday on the agreement reached with the United States and French Governments.

Does that mean that we cannot really ascertain what answer the Government gave to the American representation until we see what emerges at the actual conference on East-West trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not very long ago he himself said in this House that in old age a little abuse was a necessary and invigorating stimulant, and that we might take him at his word?