asked the Secretary of State for War what changes are pro posed in the conditions of entry to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.

None, except that entrants will now do 13 weeks as other ranks at Sandhurst instead of 10 weeks at the training unit of their Arm.

:Does that mean that cadets will enter Sandhurst without having had previous experience in the ranks elsewhere?

Yes, Sir. The cadets will have passed into Sandhurst by both examination and interview, and they will go straight to Sandhurst, thereby avoiding a considerable waste of time.

Is this in accordance with the Guards' tradition that the officers and other ranks must be completely separated?

No, Sir, it is not at all. It is in the tradition of avoiding waste of time and of increasing efficiency.

:What is the nature of the examination?

:I should like notice of that question, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman a set of the papers if he so desires.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the proposals to spend £15 million over the next three years in building and modernising bar-racks include the building and modernising of military hospitals.

Yes, Sir. As a start, improvements at the Millbank Military Hospital and the Cowglen Military Hospital are planned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very greatly welcomed, as it is 50 years since a military hospital was built in this country? I believe it is true that many of our military hospitals are below existing civilian standards.

Yes, Sir. There is a lot to be done about military hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the delay in the return to the next of kin of personal possessions of men killed in accidents, which causes distress to those concerned; and if he will take steps to hasten the return of these personal effects.

Legal processes sometimes delay the release of effects, but I know of no general delay. If the hon. Member will let me know of any particular case, I will look into it.

Is the Minister aware that I have recently had the case of a young soldier who was killed in a motor cycle accident within 50 miles of Birmingham and it took more than two months for the boy's effects to be returned, which opened up an old sore for his parents? I have known cases in the past in which it has taken four, five or six months for effects to be returned from abroad. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can hurry up the process of returning effects to parents and relatives, because it causes distress and grief if there are long delays.

I will certainly look into a particular case. However, very often a soldier dies without a will and the next of kin is not automatically the recipient of his personal belongings. This sometimes entails delay.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that sentries on duty at Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London and the Horse Guards are being exploited by Press photographers for advertising purposes; and what action he will take to prevent their exploitation.

The inclusion of sentries in photographs used for advertising purposes is not a legal offence, nor is it necessarily objectionable, always provided reasonable good taste and discretion are shown.

Is there no way of preventing the use of sentries as the stooges of any flibbertigibbet coming over here from Hollywood to boost herself in pictures? Does he not consider their antics and posturings, deliberately contrived by film publicity executives, to be in execrable taste? Will he do something about it?

Without putting another sentry in front of the sentry to keep these people away, I do not know what we should do.

Have any of the sentries complained about flibbertigibbets fraternising with them?

I have not heard any complaints, nor do I know about the flibbertigibbets.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet completed his inquiry into the circumstances under which the late 22800623 Private L. Harrison arrived home from Egypt so ill that he had to enter hospital immediately and subsequently died.

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will now have received a letter from my hon. Friend.

Can the Minister say why it has taken five months for him to complete his inquiries into this very distressing case?

:After the man returned home, he developed signs of a tumour on the brain. With the hospital, we went carefully into the question whether the tumour could have been diagnosed before he returned home, but I think the hon. Member will be satisfied that that was not the case.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to get the results of troop trials of the new rifle adopted for use in the British Army.

By the end of the summer.

:Is not it extraordinary that, over a year after we were promised by the Government that this rifle would go into immediate production, the Government have not yet made up their mind whether they would like a telescopic sight or an open aperture sight, and other simple matters like that? Is not it the case that the rifle has been redrawn in inches and so, consequently, when it is made it will not be standardised even with the Belgian rifle? Will not it then have to go through troop trials again, and is not it true that there will be no standardisation with any country in the world?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have enjoyed the trip which I arranged for him to Warminster.

It was of value.

The Government never said that this rifle was going into immediate production. The whole point about troop trials is to ensure that the rifle is tried out under every kind of conditions before we go into production, so as to avoid the necessity for subsequent modification.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Fabrique Nationale rifles are in use in the Army; and how many are of British manufacture.

Five thousand have been ordered for troop trials, most of which have already been issued. British production will not start until troop trials have been completed.

Will the right hon. Gentle-man consider whether these rifles may be maintained by the men in the barrack rooms, because the only way in which a man can learn to get the feel of a rifle is by having it constantly with him? Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there can be no security consideration which causes these rifles to be locked up?

I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Will not the Secretary of State agree that there have been extraordinary delays with this rifle and that the constant change in technical detail which is going on is one more instance of the necessity for standardisation on a particular weapon in our whole defence programme? Is not the present position rather disturbing?

:We have decided that for this rifle. What we are doing now is to have troop trials thoroughly, because by experience it has been found that if we rush into production and find difficulties subsequently, we get into trouble. I would point out that these troop trials' have been carried out very much more quickly than in any previous instance.

rose—

On a point of order. I have not had an answer to my last supplementary question. May I put it again?

:The supplementary question asked by the hon. Member was a rather lengthy one. If all the points in it were not covered by the answer, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question containing those points.

Further to that point of order. I understand the anxiety of the Government not to answer my supplementary question, but surely I have a right to put a supplementary question and, if it is asked, surely I am entitled to obtain an answer.

I have to try to ration the time between hon. Members. There are other hon. Members with Questions besides the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) who took advantage of his opportunity to ask a supplementary question to ask a rather lengthy one.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects the new rifle, adopted for service, to be in general issue to the British Army.

This depends on a number of factors, and it is too early to make a definite forecast.

Is not the Minister aware that the British rifle, which he abandoned, would have been in full production by now? Is he further aware that last year he said that by adopting the Belgian rifle we should gain a year in production, which evidently is not the case? Is it not the case that the new rifle which the British Army will have is now being remodelled in inches measurements and not on the Continental metric system and that consequently there will have to be further troop trials when it is finished and also—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—is it not the case that the claim the Government made that they had to have this rifle because of standardisation with other countries will never be fulfilled?

This rifle is standardised with Canada. [Interruption.] For that very good reason it is being re-measured in inches, in order to gain standardisation with Canada. There is a good chance that this rifle will be taken up by the United States. The Government have always said that the standardisation of rifles with outside sources of production was a major consideration in atomic and, now, in thermo-nuclear war, and I believe that this decision has been proved more than ever right by events.

:Is not the Secretary of State going to tell us anything about the continued modification of this weapon which is clearly delaying its introduction from year to year? After all, it is four years since the original decisions were taken. He first reversed those decisions and went for a different rifle, because he said it was more rapid. We now find that nothing has been introduced. Is this Government incapable of bringing any new weapon into service?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely misinforming and misleading the House. No decision was taken four years ago and, when I ventured to suggest that he himself had considered a decision, he flatly denied it in this House. Four years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, he flatly denied it—I say it again. This decision was taken because it was considered to be a sensible thing to do to gain standardisation. No rifle has ever been introduced without troop trials—it would be crazy to do so. What the right hon. Gentleman refers to as constant modifications are nothing to do with that. They are entirely concerned with completing the troop trials and combining all modifications at one time.

The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of misleading the House. That is a serious accusation. Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that the previous Government adopted, not this rifle, but what we are still convinced was a superior rifle of British manufacture? Is he denying that that decision was made and that these trials, which go on and on, all stem from the reversal by the present Government of that decision?

A decision was never made by the late Government, no decision to go into production—

That is a lie.

—was ever made, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

On a point of order. An hon. Member opposite used the word "lie." Is not that a very un-parliamentary expression?

I did not hear it because of the noise which was going on. But if any hon. Member used that un-Parliamentary expression, it is his duty to withdraw it.

:What is one to do in these circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have a point of order to put to you. Sir. The Secretary of State said that the Labour Government never made a decision to go ahead with the British rifle. That, Sir, is a lie, and what am I to call it?

:I am not concerned with the facts of this dispute. I am concerned only with the language used in this House, and the word "lie" is an un-Parliamentary expression. If the hon. Member used it, I ask him to withdraw it.

May I withdraw that expression and substitute "It is 100 per cent, inaccurate"?

:I would follow that by saying that if my predecessor as Secretary of State for War wishes to reaffirm that his Government gave orders to go into active production, will he say so now?

rose—

I would call the attention of the House to the fact that we have only reached Question No. 17.

As my right hon. Friend is directly challenged, surely it is in accordance with the traditions of the House—

I did not say that I was not going to call the right hon. Gentleman. I was on my own feet when he rose.

The position is well known to the House.

Question.

The position is well known to the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the late Government decided upon the British rifle; made all plans to go into the production of that rifle, and that those plans would long ago have been carried out if the Labour Government had remained in office?

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman—whose memory seems to have failed him—that although this was a project at the time, it was put into the "pending" tray because of the objections raised by the Opposition, especially by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Apart from the Secretary of State trying to foist his own failures upon my right hon. Friend, will he please tell us why it is that a year after he said that the Government were going into production of their rifle—which they claim they have standardised—it is still not in production?

It is because at the time of the decision we knew that troop trials would take at least a year.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will examine the position of his Department's premises which are exempt from licensing by virtue of Section 164 (2) (k) of the Licensing Act, 1953, to ensure that persons renting these premises for dances etc., shall not have unlimited licence for the sale of liquor.

We never give unlimited licence to outside bodies.

Is not it a fact that people can hire a drill hall from the military authorities for the purpose of holding a dance which can continue through the night, taking advantage of the conditions which apply? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I should be happy to send him instances of this and that I should be glad if he would inquire into the matter?

I should be interested to see the instances, but this is not in any way by our consent and is illegal. We have never given such licences.

asked the Secretary of State for War what authorisation he has given for the use of mess kit; how far the order will apply equally to both Regular and National Service officers; what is the estimated average cost per officer; and what part of the cost will be borne by public funds.

Regular officers only may wear mess dress if they want to. A new mess jacket and waistcoat costs about £35 and no part of the cost is borne by public funds.

:May I take it that officers can please themselves whether they acquire this mess dress or not, and that there is no degree of compulsion?

There is no degree of compulsion whatever.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement about the future of units in Anti-Aircraft Command.

:When the decision to reduce Anti-Aircraft Command was made, immediate discussions were started between the War Office, Anti-Aircraft Command, Home Commands and Territorial Army Associations to consider the many and conflicting claims of Territorial units regarding survival, amalgamation or alternative roles. Because very many of these units had long traditions and strong claims for survival, particular trouble was taken to ensure fairness to all and, consequently, discussions have taken some time. We are trying to preserve the identity of as many regiments as possible, but of necessity a considerable number will have to be disbanded. The full plan is almost completed, and I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we shall look forward to the future statement with great interest, because at present many of the Territorial units are rather concerned about their future, which is having a bad effect not only on the morale of existing Territorials but on future recruitment?

:Yes, I am aware of that, and I am glad, too, that the keenness of the Territorial Army is evinced by the very strong letters which I have received on this subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the numbers involved in this switch-over? I had hoped that he might have answered this Question with Question No. 6, on the same subject, which I did not hear Mr. Speaker call.

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to anticipate a Question which he put down but missed. The numbers show that about 30 per cent., by and large, will remain in their previous role, and the remainder will all be affected.

Will my right hon. Friend allow the regiments on which a decision has definitely been taken to know the result without waiting until the final list is complete?

:I thought very carefully about that but, on the whole, I believe that such a step would be unwise. If this information is let out piecemeal, those who know at once may feel pleased but others may well be aggrieved. Therefore, we have decided to make the release simultaneously.

If the Government find that they will not require the part-time service of National Service men as a result of this change, will they introduce a Measure to amend the National Service Act?

:The question of part-time service needs no amendment to the National Service Act, as the period of part-time service is purely at the discretion of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for War when the machinery for awarding Army pensions was last reviewed.

We have decided to reorganise the machinery for awarding Army pensions. This will be done by setting up an Army Pensions Office to deal with all awards of Army pensions, including soldiers' pensions at present the responsibility of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, officers' retired pay, Army family pensions and civilian superannuation. I think that it will be more efficient and economical in administration to bring them all together in one office. The Commissioners will remain responsible for the administration of the Royal Hospital and the welfare of pensioners living there. An Order to give effect to certain of these changes will shortly be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement will be very much welcomed as one leading not only to economy but, we hope, to increased efficiency?

asked the Secretary of State for War what is his estimate of the financial saving in his Department which would result from reducing the National Service period by six months.

About £25 million a year.

To save time and to increase efficiency, quite apart from fulfilling pledges given, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider making this saving?

I know of no pledge. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

:Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pledge given in 1950, when National Service was increased to two years, that this was purely a temporary measure, although it has now been going on for over four years? Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider reducing the period of National Service?

The Government stated last year, and we state again now, that it is our object and policy to reduce National Service by as much as possible as soon as possible but that depends on events, and events at present do not allow that it should be reduced by six months.

Do the Government regard themselves as bound by the pledge given in 1950 that the increase from 18 months to two years was in respect of the Korean war and for a temporary period only and, if so, when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give effect to it?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that pledge was given about the Korean war and that nothing has happened since, all I can say is that he has not been studying the general strategic situation very much.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that that pledge was given quite clearly about the Korean war? Is he now going to plead the Government's failure to get Regular recruits as a reason for refusing to reduce the period of National Service?

:This has practically nothing to do with Regular recruiting. Regular recruiting has remained perfectly steady for the last three years. The reasons for the present period of National Service are the general situation overseas, our commitments in Europe and our desire to balance the Army's general structure by creating a strategic reserve.

asked the Secretary of State for War his latest estimate of the proportion of men originally volunteering for a three-year engagement with the Colours who are extending their period of service.

By May, as a result of a special examination, we shall know how many of the men enlisted between 1st November,1951, and 31st March, 1952, have decided to prolong their service. In the meantime, we cannot make any reliable estimate because, without this special inquiry, it is impossible to relate the prolongations so far recorded to the dates of enlistment.

:The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the number of men who signed on for three years over three years ago. Why is it not possible, taking, for example, the men who signed on between October and December of 1951, to discover what proportion has decided to pro-long the period of service, which would give some indication of the number likely to do so in the future and the possibility of fulfilling the Minister's hope?

First, the period did not start in October. It did not start until November. Secondly, and more important, it is impossible by our present system of statistics to tell whether a man who has prolonged was one within the November, December, January period, or whether he is a man on a three-year engagement who has prolonged his engagement earlier. It can be done in any period within the three-year engagement.

May I ask whether it is a fact that a man has to give six months' notice of his intention to prolong his service?

Yes, Sir, that is entirely the case, but that is with the 22-year engagement which started in May, 1952.

:On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman, unwittingly or not, has grossly misled the House. Is it not a fact that a soldier does not have to give notice to prolong his engagement but if he wishes to go out?

I am sorry; I was answering in the terms of the supplementary question. A man who decides not to go on and who has engaged on a 22-year engagement must give notice that he does not wish to go on six months before. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and I am obliged to him.

:The right hon. Gentleman himself is very interested in this matter, as he introduced this short period engagement to try to get recruits. Surely he can take the House a little more into his confidence and tell us what information he has? If it is not three months, that is to say, from October to December, surely he can tell us what has happened between November and December, 1951?

I should like to take the House fully into my confidence; it is a matter of great interest to me and to the whole House. The point is that any man who joins on a three-year engagement can prolong it at any time. Without the special inquiry to which I referred, there is no way of telling whether it is a man in the November, December, January period or whether it is a man who joined on a three-year engagement between November, 1951, and now. The figures would have to be specially separated and analysed for those particular periods.

asked the Secretary of State for War why he required that candidates should have qualifications recognised by the British Dietetic Association in his advertisement in "The Times" for a nutrition adviser; why he did not consult the Nutrition Society before authorising this advertisement; and if he will make a statement.

A qualification recognised by the British Dietetic Association was considered essential. I understand that the Nutrition Society are not concerned with prescribing qualifications in this field.

:Did the right hon. Gentle-man personally approve the terms of this advertisement? Is he aware that, although he advertised for a man or woman, the qualifications of the British Dietetic Association apply only to women? Is he further aware that he asked for a qualified graduate in nutrition; that the only course in a British university for nutrition started two years ago and that there will not be any graduates until 1956?

This qualification is given only by the British Dietetic Association. It is open to both men and women, and it is a fact that so far only women have qualified. But I have no objection at all to taking on a woman in this post, because I think there is every chance that a woman would do the job as well as a man.

:But will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? He requires a qualified graduate in nutrition and he cannot possibly get one until 1956. Why, therefore, waste public money by advertising in "The Times" last Tuesday?

I am informed that there are other ladies who are qualified in this respect.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why foreign manufacturers of men's woven shirts are allowed to import these into this country without any mark of origin, whereas women's woven garments and men's knitted shirts have to be marked with the country of origin.

Orders in Council—

No aircraft; no rifles.

Order. I would point out to the House that we are now dealing with the subject of men's woven shirts.

Orders in Council have been made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring imported women's woven outerwear and men's knitted shirts to be marked with an indication of origin. No such order has been made in respect of imported men's woven shirts because there has been no recommendation for such an order from the appropriate Standing Committee appointed under the Act.

:Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that it would be a good thing if the Board of Trade were to do something without first having to be prodded by the Opposition? Will not he take steps to recommend that men's woven shirts are thus designated, in view of the increasing exports from the Far East?

I would recommend the hon. Lady to look at the terms of Section 2 (3) of the Act. She will find that the Board of Trade has no power to refer this matter to the Committee until an application is made to it to do so. If an application is made, we shall take the necessary steps.

On a point of order. Would I be in order to point out a grammatical mistake in the Minister's supplementary reply?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the reason for this extraordinary discrimination between the sexes?

I have explained that no application has been made to the Board of Trade to refer this matter to the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Section of the Act to which I have referred, he will see that a request has to be made. He can make as good a guess as I why no such request has been made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending agreement upon a revised strategic list relating to shipbuilding for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he is satisfied that Western European countries and Japan are observing the restrictions of the present strategic list; and if he will make a statement.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." On the general question, my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

:Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm or otherwise the reports that ships built in Western Germany for Soviet Russia are exceeding the limit laid down under the strategic list? Secondly, can he say whether new arrangements are on foot for a meeting of the countries concerned to revise this strategic list?

:If my hon. Friend is referring to the ship which he recently mentioned in a question, I am advised that that ship was not of a kind to be subject to the embargo. Questions upon ships, however, should be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a Question was put to the First Lord of the Admiralty he said that we must ask the Board of Trade? Will the hon. and learnedGentleman—who seems to be the only Member in the House who is not aware of what is going on in Germany—tell the House when we can expect to get some changes made in the strategic list for ships? It was on 26th July last that the President of the Board of Trade said that agreement had not yet been reached. Now, seven months later, will the hon. and learned Gentle-man tell us whether discussions are even proceeding?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will see that the Question in regard to which my hon. Friend was advised to question the Board of Trade was a different one. As regards the strategic list, I have nothing to add to my original answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to provide for the compulsory registration of all trade agreements covering price-fixing, allocation of quotas or con-tracts, and collective decisions on new inventions, and to require the regular publication of activities resulting from such agreements.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 8th February, 1955.

I have seen that answer, but surely the President of the Board of Trade does not need to hide behind the Monopolies Commission in this matter? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be a good idea to get registration, whatever the Monopolies Commission may report? Does not he agree that we can deal better with these restrictive practices in industry if we know their extent, and how they operate?

The question of registration was considered when the original Act was passed. I think that the hon. Member is well aware of the importance of the Section 15 inquiry which is now taking place into what can be described as exclusive dealing and collective boycott. I am sure that the House will be well advised to await that report, which is expected this summer, before deciding what legislation should be introduced.

:Instead of sheltering behind irrelevant references to the Monopolies Commission, as my hon. Friend has said, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take note of the fact that that reference has nothing to do with the registration of these price-fixing arrangements? That reference strictly related to certain practices of the kind he mentioned, and not at all to the question of registration.

I tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the question of registration was considered and rejected at the time the statute was passed. What I am saying is that, before embarking upon further legislation dealing with monopolies, the House should certainly await the report which the Commission will make upon the most important reference to it, under Section 15 of the Act.

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary continually confuse two quite distinct things? We all appreciate that there is a reference to the Com-mission whether certain restrictive practices should be banned, but my hon. Friend's question does not relate to that. It relates to the publication and registration of trade agreements. What conceivable reason is there against full publicity in this matter?

Exactly the same difficulties and objections exist as existed when the right hon. Gentleman's own Government introduced the original Act. At that time this question was considered and—for good reasons, in the view of both main parties in the House—was rejected. If there were time to debate the question, I could mention many difficulties which arise in relation to the proposal.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 394 monkeys out of a total consignment of 1,600 were found to have died from suffocation while in London en route from Delhi to the United States of America; and, in view of the fact that these are required solely for the purposes of experiments by vivisection, whether he will prohibit importation of these and other animals to avoid further such incidents.

:My right hon. Friend deplores what happened in this case, but does not think that import restrictions would be an appropriate method of dealing with these problems.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that over 1,000 monkeys died en route from India to this country last year, that most of them were female monkeys which had babies on the way, and that both babies and mothers died? Will he consider if some action could be taken to stop this abominable traffic, which is going on in such large numbers?

I do not think this problem could properly be dealt with by restrictions on transhipment. Of course, I sympathise with what prompted the Question by the hon. Member, but I think that this matter is really better dealt with under the Protection of Animals Act than under import or transhipment restrictions

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the result of the proceedings taken by his Department under the Merchandise Marks Acts on the matter of the dress purchased by Mrs. Green at Weston-super-Mare, details of which were sup-plied to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South, on 26th October last.

I cannot yet add to my letter to the hon. Member of 31st January, 1955. The case is still sub judice.

I am aware that it would be improper of me to refer to a case which is sub judice, but may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it would not be advisable to ensure that cases are not lost because of insufficient technical information being given to the magistrates? Would it not be a good idea for the Board of Trade to assure the House that they will employ permanent counsel on all these matters wherever the cases are heard? What is the use of our giving cases to the Board of Trade if the Board of Trade lose them?

I do not agree at all with the implications of what the hon. Lady has said. She really must not press me to comment on a case which is sub judice. I appreciate her interest in this case, and I will write to her as soon as I can.

If the case is sub judice, I do not see that questions can be asked about it.

:With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to this case. I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary if the Board of Trade would give an assurance to the House that they would employ permanent counsel on all these cases which are brought under these Acts, irrespective of where these cases are heard?

If the hon. Lady wants an answer to that question, she had better put it down on the Order Paper. I do not think the House will suspect me of having any prejudice against the employment of counsel, but I must dissociate myself from the implications of the hon. Lady's original supplementary question.

I will certainly put it down.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the growing disquiet among manufacturers in this country concerning textile exports from Hong Kong; and what action is proposed to deal with the copying of British patents and British brand names.

Some anxiety has been expressed about competition from exports of certain low-priced textiles from Hong Kong. The few cases of copying known to my right hon. Friend have been effectively dealt with under existing Acts.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a further example of what we on this side of the House have found—that the Board of Trade only try to deal with these cases after they have happened? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to take any action to defend our manufacturers as far as Hong Kong is concerned?

The hon. Lady is well aware that it is not the policy of H.M. Government to restrict imports from the Colonies by quotas or tariffs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications he has received, under Section 5 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, from proprietors of cinema circuits for permission to acquire additional cinemas; and what answer he has given to those applications.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications he has received from large cinema-owning circuits for approval of proposals to acquire additional cinemas.

The Rank Organisation and the Associated British Picture Corporation have been told that the Board of Trade will not use their powers under the Section to prevent either from acquiring up to 607 cinemas.

Is not that a most scandalous announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary? In the first place, will he not agree that this will defeat a great part of the film policy of both the last Governments in this matter and will put the independent producers more and more in the hands of the big circuits? Secondly, since this matter is controlled by statute, and was controlled by a gentleman's agreement initiated by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, does he not consider that he ought to have come along to the House quite honestly and informed the House of a big change of policy, without our having to wait to get it out of him by means of Questions?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that there has been any change of policy. If he will refer to the correspondence of about 11 years ago— [Interruption.] Yes, 11 years ago, because that was what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. If he does so, he will find that the maximum prescribed was something less than 607. That is where the figure 607 comes from, and we are allowing the circuits to rise to that number. Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman says there has been a change of policy, I may remind him of what he said to the House in speaking on this Section. This is what he said:

"These paragraphs confer a fairly wide power on the Board of Trade. I recognise that that is so and that it is one which could in theory be used in a restrictive way. I give the assurance that I have no intention of using it except for the strictly limited purpose of holding the balance even between the large circuits." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1736.]

Since I said that there was no change of policy, because the policy was laid down, not in 1948 but in 1946 by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that policy stated that there would be no increase permitted above the then level of cinema holdings for large circuits?

The matters are dealt with by this Section of the Act, and it is this Section on which we will rely and on which the large circuits have approached us. For the reasons I have given, there is no change in policy between what was announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) at the time I mentioned and the policy now being adopted.

:Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is scandalous, because more and more of these independent cinemas may fall into this semi-monopolistic control, which debars independent producers from having guaranteed exhibition of the films they make? Since most are British quota films, is it not therefore a pro-American film policy, directed against the interests of British film producers?

No; on the contrary, what I have announced is likely to be in the interests of independent British producers, who require large circuits for their bookings. The hon. Member assumes that all these cinemas are being acquired from somebody else, but they may be newly-built cinemas or war-damaged premises repaired.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that textile orders from Czechoslovakia are in abeyance pending the resumption of licences for the import of consumer goods from that country; and whether he will take steps to admit these imports.

:Some purchases of textiles have been made by a Czechoslovak purchasing organisation, but my right hon. Friend is not aware to what extent further purchases would be made if import licences for Czechoslovak consumer goods could be resumed. The issue of such licences must await the conclusion of a trade and financial agreement on which negotiations have, unfortunately, been in suspense for some time.

If I send information to the Parliamentary Secretary showing that the goods in supply would be to the value of about £500,000, which is a reasonable amount of money for the West Riding of Yorkshire, will he give the matter further consideration, especially in view of the fact that licences might well come from Western Germany if we do not offer them?

My right hon. Friend will certainly consider anything that the hon. Member sends him. Meanwhile, I should like to refer the hon. Gentleman to an article on the subject in the "Board of Trade Journal" for 5th February, 1955, which gives an explanation of our policy on this matter.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say if negotiations with Czechoslovakia are still continuing and when he expects that an agreement will be signed?

No; there are difficulties. The article to which I have referred the hon. Member explains that we restricted imports of less essentials, including consumer goods, except in the context of an agreement which includes the settlement of financial claims.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many dollars have been earned by the exhibition of British films in the United States of America during 1952, 1953, and 1954; and how many dollars have been expended by this country in the same periods for United States films exhibited here.

No reliable figures are available of dollars earned in the United States from the exhibition of British films. The figures asked for in the second part of the Question are $24·16 million, $22·68 million and $25·2 million.

I am afraid that because of the laughter from the Opposition side of the House I did not hear a single word of the Minister's answer.

Shall I repeat it?

No.

I do ask the House to keep some order in this matter.

I said that no reliable figures are available of dollars earned in the United States from the exhibition of British films. The figures asked for in the second part of the Question are $24·16 million, $22·68 million and $25·2 million.

While awaiting any more figures that may be given, would not my hon. and learned Friend confirm that we earned far fewer dollars in the United States than we paid out to the United States in that period? If my assumption is correct, may I ask whether it is not time to expect some reasonable reciprocity in this matter?

I should be happy to explain to my hon. Friend why the figures are not available. I certainly agree with him that we desire all possible facilities for British films in the United States, but I do not think, when my hon. Friend considers the relative sizes of the two industries, that he can expect exact correspondence.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the motor vehicles, textiles, shipbuilding, agricultural machinery, and furniture trades are protected by tariffs.

:Since the import duties on the products of each of these industries cover so wide a range of goods, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the customs tariff, flagged for easy reference to the relevant items.

Is the hon. and learned Member aware that considerable protection is afforded to these industries, which of course puts up the price to the domestic.consumer? In view of that fact, does he not think that the frequent jibe that farmers are unfairly subsidised and protected is rather unjustified?

:I had better confine myself to the Question which the hon. Member thought fit to put upon the Paper. I would remind him that import duties are not charged on industries but on particular products.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many standard types of screw thread are in manufacture and in common use in this country; how many of those types are in common use abroad; and what steps are being taken to adopt uniform international standards of screw threads in the interests of our export trade.

Three, Sir, including a unified thread introduced recently by agreement between the United States, Canada and this country, are in common use here. Two of these are in use abroad. The British Standards Institution, with the full co-operation of industry, is actively engaged in international discussions designed to secure wider agreement on an international standard.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many applications in Scotland for factory building or extension between the sizes of 5,000 and 20,000 square feet were authorised in 1953 and 1954, respectively, and how many were refused;

As explained in the Board of Trade Journal of 2nd October, 1954, the statistics of factory building now record area instead of value figures. One hundred and five applications for new buildings or extensions between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet were granted in 1953, and 100 in 1954. No application was refused.

Do not these figures indicate that, if existing trends continue, these applications may in future, be sanctioned forthwith in Scotland with-out reference to London, and that this may be a useful and efficient measure of devolution?

Recent changes, which I think my hon. Friend has in mind, are not unimportant, but on the particular point which I think he has in mind, I should be glad if he would put down a further Question.

Is the Minister aware that factory building in Scotland is decreasing, while it is going up in England? What does he think about that?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the continuing decline in exports of cotton piece goods from this country; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about an improvement.

Yes, Sir. To the ex-tent that the remedy lies within the sphere of Government action, we shall use all our efforts to secure equitable treatment for cotton piece goods in overseas markets.

Is the Minister aware of the statement published in the "Manchester Guardian "recently that the quantity of cotton piece goods exported last year from this country was the lowest since 1947, a year when we had barely recovered from the war? Does not this mean that cotton piece goods exports now are lower than they have even been in peace-time since the American Civil War? When are the Government proposing to do something about Lancashire's cotton?

The right hon. Gentleman knows the complexity of this problem. The suggestion that the Government have done nothing about it is quite incorrect.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this matter must be looked at in a new light, in view of the fact that in many mills man-made fibres are now being used and are being exported by manufacturers who in the past made only cotton fabrics?

I quite agree that the matter must be looked at from all aspects but, if the suggestion is that Her Majesty's Government do nothing, it is unjustified. We take these matters thoroughly into consideration in negotiating all inter-Government trade agreements. We put the entire resources of the Government's export services, including those of the Trade Commissioner and Commercial Diplomatic Services overseas, at the disposal of the industry. We co-operate with the Cotton Board in publicity overseas and help in sending trade missions into importing countries.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the best thing he could do to increase piece goods exports would be to deal with the question of Purchase Tax on Lancashire cotton cloth? Is he now telling the House that as a result of looking at these things in a new light we have now no cotton piece exports in addition to having no guns, no aircraft, and no figures?

If the right hon. Gentle-man thinks that we have no cotton exports, he is more ignorant of the position than anybody in this House had suspected.

asked the President of the Board of Trade by how many times imports of Indian cloth into Britain in the fourth quarter of 1954 exceeded the imports in the same quarter of 1953.

Imports of cotton cloth from India in the fourth quarter of 1954 were a little over three times the imports in the fourth quarter of 1953.

Since there has been this very big increase, not merely between the four quarters of 1953 and the four quarters of 1954, but an even bigger increase during the earlier months of 1955, will the Government now tell Lancashire what they propose to do about this very serious problem? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long speech in Manchester without saying what was going to be done. Will the hon. and learned Gentle-man tell the House?

I cannot greatly add to the last answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd February and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 8th February. I can only add that the Minister of State is in Lancashire today.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of Scotch whisky exported in 1954.

The trade statistics do not show Scotch and Irish whisky separately. 13,691,000 proof gallons of whisky were exported in 1954.

Although this point is not in the Question, may I ask whether my hon. and learned Friend has any in-formation handy to show how those figures compare with the figures of the previous year?

Yes. The corresponding figure in 1952 was 11,531,000 and, in 1953, 13,206,000. There has been a further increase.

Is the Minister aware that there will be great discontent in Scotland if there is no Scotch whisky? Is he aware that, because of the extremely high profits, the time has come to refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission?

I quite understand that there would be distress in Scotland if the facts were as stated by the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he made of the minimum number of films which must be produced annually for the maintenance of the existing quotas, taking into account the need to offer a reasonable choice to exhibitors; and what steps he took to satisfy himself that facilities exist for the production of this number before fixing the existing quota.

Under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, the Board of Trade determine the quotas after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, which my right hon. Friend is satisfied takes all relevant considerations into account.

As the President of the Board of Trade referred to the Cinematograph Films Council and to the deterioration in the facilities for film production, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of the number of studios that have been sold out of the film industry for commercial television? Was that one of the factors taken into consideration in calculating the possibilities of film production in the next 12 months?

:The selling of studios has been dealt with in a previous answer to the hon. Member. I would refer him to Section 2 of the 1948 Act, where he will see that these matters are considered by the Cinematograph Films Council, which gives its view to the President of the Board of Trade. The President has acted on that view.