asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people were in receipt of National Assistance allowances during the first week in April, 1955; what was the total cost; and how this compares in numbers and in cost with the first week in May, 1955.

On 29th March, 1955, the number of regular weekly National Assistance grants was 1,807,466. On 26th April, the number was 1,693,364. Most of the grants are paid at post offices, and I regret that information showing total expenditure by weeks is not available.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many people were in receipt of National Assistance allowances at the latest convenient date; what was the total amount paid out; and how it compares with a similar period in 1954.

The number of regular weekly National Assistance grants on 31st May, 1955, was 1,648,549 compared with 1,782,287 on 25th May, 1954. As regards the cost, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous Question.

Was not the answer given by a previous Government, and could not that Parliamentary Secretary give the figure now for the benefit of the House?

The cost by weeks is not available. The cost by calendar months is available, but it takes two months before the information can be collated and presented.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons there are in Great Britain in receipt of the 10s. widow's pension; and how much he estimates it would cost to double the pension to these recipients.

About 155,000 widows are now receiving the 10s. widow's pension. The extra cost of doubling their pensions would be about £4 million a year at present.

Does my hon. Friend know that in Northern Ireland there are, in addition, 2,804 expectant 10s. widows waiting for him to do justice to the widows over here so that the Northern Ireland Government can follow suit and give them a quid pro quo?

I would ask my hon. Friend to let me have a note of the expectant widows in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive the review now being made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee upon widowhood provisions and the question of the 10s. widow.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will arrange for the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the position of widows receiving a pension of 10s. a week, to be available before the Summer Recess.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has now received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the position of the 10s. widow; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for Itchen (Dr. King) and Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 13th June, and to what was said about this in my right hon. Friend's speech in the debate on the Address last Tuesday.

I do not recollect the answer given to the Question, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in his speech his right hon. Friend added nothing to our previous knowledge? As the number of 10s. widows is relatively small—as revealed in the answer to Question No. 19—does he not feel that something could be done about this, as it is an urgent matter for most of these women?

I am sure that many hon. Members have knowledge of individual cases of hardship, but, as a general class, the 10s. widow is not as badly off as some who are in receipt of National Insurance benefits. The proportion of 10s. widows receiving National Assistance is 14 per cent., but for all National Insurance beneficiaries it is 22 per cent. As a category, there is no hardship, but if any hon. Member has knowledge of any individual case of hardship, I should be glad to have the information.

I do not recollect the answer either. My Question asked whether the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee will be available before the Summer Recess. Could I have an answer?

It depends upon the National Insurance Advisory Committee, over which my right hon. Friend has no real control. He cannot ask the Committee to report by a given date. The point is that the Committee has most of the evidence at its disposal and has promised to report as soon as possible.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what is causing the delay in getting the report from the National Insurance Advisory Committee, when as far back as 12th March, 1954, we were promised that this matter would receive urgent attention? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, although he made light of the small number of people involved, this class of persons has been suffering an injustice since the present Government took power?

I could not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The reason for the delay is that it is a complicated and complex matter. The basic assumption underlying the Question is that every 10s. widow is worse off than a comparable widow under the existing scheme. That is not so. Some of the 10s. widows are very much better off.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will review the regulations which lay down the period within which claims for insurance benefit and allowances must be made, in view of the hardship caused to insured persons, as in the case referred to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East.

No, Sir. These time-limits were comprehensively reviewed and reported on by the National Insurance Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in 1952, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for a further review at this time.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the many cases that arise of persons who are fully entitled to benefits of one kind or another but, due to some misunderstanding, do not make their claim—sometimes it is just a matter of days—within the time prescribed by the regulations? Is not this very hard, and should not some liberty be allowed to the regional officer to admit such claims?

In 1952 the National Insurance Advisory Committee did recommend the acceptance of later notice of retirement. In principle, my right hon. Friend has accepted that recommendation, but it would require legislation to carry it into effect.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when it may be further proceeded with? Is there any chance of it this Session?

It will certainly be included in the next comprehensive legislation introduced by the Department.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that some recipients of pensions and benefits are still actually worse off as a result of the recent revision of pensions; and if he will introduce amending legislation to remove such anomalies.

No, Sir. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I should he glad to see it.

Is the Minister aware that during the recent Election many hon. Members on this side of the House were given examples by the people themselves of how they were worse off? Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee to any people in this country who are worse off as a result of this recent so-called increase that their pensions will be attended to and the increase put into effect?

If hon. Members opposite who have had these cases presented to them during the Election will be kind enough to forward them to my right hon. Friend, every one will be looked into.

Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of cases not only of old-age pensioners but of people in receipt of sickness benefit who are dissatisfied? I could mention one or two cases that have been brought to my attention this weekend of people who have suffered a reduction as a result of the reduction in their National Assistance pay. Is it fair that these people should be told by headlines in the Press and statements by the Government before the Election that all those in receipt of old-age pensions and sickness benefit would be better off as a result of the Government's statement mentioning 12s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., when many of these people get only 4s. and 2s. 6d.?

The Question on the Order Paper referred to people who are

"still actually worse off as a result of the recent revision of pensions."

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he has sent to the letter concerning the hardship of retired persons from the Honorary Secretary of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations, Coventry Area Council, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South.

I would ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's reply to her letter of 17th June.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that letter from the Secretary of the Coventry Area Council concerned the proposed increase in coal prices? Is he aware that these recent pension increases, whatever they may be worth, will do nothing to improve that problem? Is he prepared to do anything to help old people to get fuel in the coming winter?

The letter that the hon. Member sent me was dated 17th June, and it is now 20th June. I would ask her to await a considered reply to that letter.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why he proposes to close the Osgoldcross Fuel Office in Pontefract.

I am awaiting my regional officer's recommendations in regard to this office.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what economy he has achieved in fuel overseers and fuel offices, compared with October, 1951; and what is the financial economy he has thus achieved, per annum, in operating the domestic coal allocation schemes, comparing 1955 with 1951.

A reduction in the number of overseers and offices from 1,455 to 782 and in the annual cost from £1,142,000 to about £850,000.

That is a very satisfactory answer, but can my right hon. Friend say what further progress he now hopes to make towards the elimination of all fuel overseers and fuel offices which are, after all, only a hangover from Socialism?

I should much like to get rid of coal rationing, but that depends fundamentally on an improvement in coal supplies.

In the meantime, will the Minister watch very carefully the closing down of some of these fuel offices in industrial areas? For instance, in the case of Tamworth, to which I have drawn his attention, a mining community can be placed in this position: miners who normally receive concessionary coal no longer receive this coal as part of their wages when they are sick and they have to go to the fuel office, and in this case the fuel office has been moved to a very un-get-at-able area about 15 miles away.

Of course, this work of securing economy, which is small in relation to the national accounts, but which I am sure the House will agree is well worth while, is quite hard work because of the detailed administrative work involved. So far, however, we have managed to reduce the number of overseers by about half, with very little com- plaint. We look into each case most carefully before a final decision is taken.

Is not the reason for the shortage of coal that the coal which we produce in England and make available here is much cheaper than the coal which anybody else abroad can produce, and that it is therefore more expensive because we have to import a more expensive article?

There is an element of truth in that statement, but I would regard it as an overstatement.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will again set up a committee of investigation to inquire into the sale of coal to private industry at prices below the cost of production.

No, Sir. Nor can I accept the implication that the National Coal Board discriminate between classes of consumer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in coalfields about this question and that many of the miners are convinced that private industry, particularly the steel industry, is getting its coal at less than the economic price? If that is the case, will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the matter and put it right in order that nationalised industry is not in the position of having to subsidise private industry?

The principles of pricing applied to coal for the steel industry are exactly the same as those applied to the coal supplied to the Central Electricity Authority, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will disabuse the miners of their mistaken belief.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the principal element in respect of subsidy to all classes of consumers of coal is in respect of the large accumulated losses of the National Coal Board, and that is a taxpayers' subsidy?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent the prices of solid fuels have been increased recently; and to what extent this has been due to the current strikes.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what increases have taken place in the price of coal since the beginning of the year.

To the end of May, increases arising from distribution costs varied locally from 6d. to 2s. 5d. per ton. On 5th June, there were increases arising from railway freight charges amounting on average to about 1s. 6d. per ton. During the railway strike many coal merchants incurred abnormal costs, chiefly for long distance road haulage, and in such cases temporary price increases were authorised.

Is my right hon. Friend doing what he can to bring home to the strikers the harm that they are doing to their own country?

Is it not the case that one of the underlying causes of the increase in coal prices is the money that we are losing by importing coal? Why did the Minister decide to withhold any announcement about further price increases, which should have been made in March, until well after the General Election? It was purely for electoral purposes.

The underlying reason for the imports is that we are not producing enough to meet our own needs.

Could my right hon. Friend let us know when he is going to make a specific statement on coal prices? Does he think it is good practice for chairmen of gas boards and other people to keep on pointing out that there is going to be a rise in the price of coal, in the absence of any authoritative statement? Is it not right that the National Coal Board should make the statement, rather than other people not directly concerned with the matter?

It is a matter for the National Coal Board.

But why does not my right hon. Friend do something about it?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been imported to date this year, and at what cost in dollars and otherwise and of the total proposed imports of 12 million tons of coal this year at an aggregate cost of approximately £80 million, how much will be paid for in dollars and how much otherwise.

Four and a half million tons up to the end of May, at a landed cost of £27½ million, of which nearly £5 million was payable in dollars. It is not yet possible to estimate the dollar cost of imports in the full year, but a substantial part of our requirements will have to be obtained from the United States.

Is it not a fact that the accumulated deficit of the National Coal Board to 31st March last will be added to now by 12 million tons, all of which is sold at a loss of £2 per ton?. In view of this very large deficit in sight, would it not be advisable to warn all concerned that coal is likely to rise in price by about 10s. a ton?

As has been said, there have been a number of public comments about this matter.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman could get out of this difficulty of importing dollar coal if he really set to and tackled the oil monopoly? He would get the price down by at least 40 per cent., from £10 a ton to £6 a ton, and it then would not be necessary to import coal at all.

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the current coal position, with special reference to loss of production through strikes, on distributed and undistributed stocks compared with an equivalent date last year, and on house coal prospects for next winter.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the effect of the recent railway strike upon the production, the export and the import of coal.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in stockpiling coal near the pit-heads during the current emergency.

As a result of the rail strike there was little loss of production, little reduction of imports though exports were considerably curtailed, and about one million tons of coal were stockpiled on the ground near the pits. Through disputes at the mines, however, 1·9 million tons have so far been lost this year. Total distributed and undistributed stocks at 4th June, the latest date for which figures are available, were 13·3 million tons against 15·2 million tons at the corresponding date last year. All possible steps are being taken to build up adequate supplies for next winter, but it is too early to make any statement on the prospects for any one type of consumer.

In view of the fact that all these figures point to an extremely difficult position developing, will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not possible to give consumers of all classes a very much greater incentive to stock coal in the summer, especially in view of the near-breakdown of household supplies last winter, largely due to the lack of adequate stocking during the summer months?

I am all in favour of summer stocking, but I do not think it would be practicable to change the summer price scheme at the moment. As a matter of fact, the difficulties last winter arose partly because coal which was being stocked in the summer for use during the winter was, in fact, used during the summer because it was too much like the winter.

In view of the million tons of coal which are wasted every year, will the Minister take effective action to secure economy by industry and carry out some of the measures recommended by the Ridley Committee?

Yes, Sir. A great deal of progress is being made in that direction by the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, which is making very good progress.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will direct the Iron and Steel Board to make an inquiry into the practice of steel firms quoting identical prices for structural steel contracts.

No, Sir. I think the hon. Member's point was covered by the statement made on 16th June by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he said that he expected very shortly to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission on the supply of steel frames for buildings.

Why should we have to wait perhaps two or three years before we get that report and then another year for the Government to consider it when, under nationalisation, the Minister could give directions such as these at any time? Does not this prove the case which we made when steel was being denationalised—that this board is a complete sham and is made to do nothing at all?

No, Sir. The Minister could not give directions because the production of structural steel products is outside the purview of the Iron and Steel Board, and it is appropriate for the Monopolies Commission to examine the reference which is about to be made to it.

Is the Minister aware that at least four or five of the leading firms which make structural steel, and certainly four of the firms quoting prices for the L.C.C. recently, had been publicly owned before denationalisation, and that under nationalisation the Minister would have had a perfect right to give to these companies such instructions as he wanted, instructing them not to carry out such anti-social activities and not to exploit the public? Is not my hon. Friend perfectly right, therefore, in saying that it is denationalisation which has prevented the Government from interfering with these practices?

The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of investigating those matters for himself when he was Minister.

Would it not have been possible to suggest to the Minister of Housing and Local Government that where public tenders turn out to be identical, as they so frequently do, he could advise local authorities to insist on a costs certificate on profit and to deduct anything about a certain profit from the tender price? That would be an easy way out of the difficulty.

I think that that hobby-horse of the right hon. Gentleman will be examined by the Monopolies Commission.

I hope it will.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern felt in the countryside at the continuing reduction in the number of agricultural workers; and what steps he has in mind to deal with this situation.

Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service and I are aware of the position, which we know is not easy. Productivity however is rising and while numbers have been going down, total net output has been going up. The Government welcome this evidence of increasing efficiency and will continue to play their part in providing facilities for the training and education of farm workers and in the improvement of amenities and public services in the countryside.

Is the Minister aware that an improvement in transport facilities and an increased availability of smallholdings would be two very helpful contributions towards a solution of this difficult problem?

I agree with my hon. Friend that both those things are very important.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now considered the Report of the Committee on Slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to receive the Report next month.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has, in the last two weeks, increased the wholesale prices of bacon 20s. to 32s. per cwt.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), on 16th June, 1955.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was a most unsatisfactory reply, because it gave no indication why prices have been increased at a time of a seasonal decline in demand, following a reduction in prices for pigs to farmers? There can be no justification for these increases now. Will the Minister say when we are to have some orderly marketing?

I think the steps which have been taken and the price changes which are illustrated in the reply to which I have referred are sensible. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that present prices of bacon are substantially below the prices at the time of decontrol.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at any rate it is suspicious when prices fixed by the Government are decreased during the General Election and increased immediately the Election is over?

I would remind the hon. Member that demand is very much stronger now than it was.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the horticulture inquiry set up by his Department.

I understand that the Committee, which was appointed on 31st March, began work very shortly afterwards. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the task the Committee has been given is one of great scope and complexity.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that sufficient publicity has been given to the terms of reference, etc., of the Committee? Will the Committee be touring the country during its investigation? Will flowers be included? Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when the vegetable side of the problem will be considered?

I think my hon. Friend has asked me four questions. The more publicity given to this very important inquiry the better I shall be pleased. I think the appointment of the Committee has had a good deal of notice in the Press. I am glad to say that the Committee is hard at work. It issued a Press statement on 4th May which indicated the priority of tasks and I think that gives my hon. Friend the information which he requires.

asked the Minister of Health what facilities are available for the rehabilitation of chronic arthritics.

In addition to those hospitals which specialise in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, most large general hospitals have rehabilitation departments which provide a full range of facilities including various forms of physiotherapy and occupational therapy for chronic arthritics as for those suffering from other disabilities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of coinplaints—or, at least there is a strong feeling—that much more could be done for this type of case, which is a very sad one?

I think it probable that, in general, the facilities are reasonably adequate, but it may well be that there is a certain lack of liaison between hospital authorities and the different welfare services. That certainly is a matter I shall be glad to look into.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some of the cars supplied by his Department to severely disabled persons are now more than seven years old; and if he will indicate his proposals for replacement with new cars.

I have the whole of this question under consideration now.

Is the Minister aware that, generally speaking, the men first supplied with the cars are those with the greatest need, and that their continued employment and livelihood depend on the efficiency of their cars? At some later date, could the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of future policy?

The principle of replacement is accepted. It is the details of replacement which are being worked out and are under consideration.

asked the Minister of Health what position Dr. Brian Taylor, of Church Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, holds under the National Health Service.

That of a part-time consultant to the board of governors of the United Birmingham Hospitals and to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents who was a footplate man on strike a few weeks ago, and his wife, patients of this doctor, received a letter from the doctor saying:

"I am afraid my principles prevent me from seeing patients who are on strike, except in cases of emergency. Do you mind postponing your visit with your wife? If you 'phone for an appointment when the strike is over, I will try to fix a convenient date."

The hon. Member, I am sure, knows of the difficulty there is in this situation. If there were any question of breach of contract within the National Health Service, it would be a matter for which I would be answerable in this House, and would be glad to answer, but if it is a question of medical etiquette which the hon. Member seems to raise, that is not for me, nor is the matter of a private arrangement a doctor might make with his private patient.

Is it not a fact that this doctor says that his principles do not allow him to see these people? Surely his principles must operate in the National Health Service as a whole and what he is saying is that he will never see a patient on strike?

Equally, there is a matter of principle involved in my reply. I cannot reply on matters for which there is no Ministerial responsibility at all, and that, I am afraid, is the case in this regard.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a practitioner—a medical person—who makes this discrimination in respect of a man on strike, an official strike, is suitable to be practising in the National Health Service?

The right hon. Member, who is a very distinguished parliamentarian, knows perfectly well the difficulty I am in in responding to this Question. I really do not think I can go beyond what I have said. I do not make the rules of the House. If this is a matter in which there is no Ministerial responsibility, I do not see how I can offer comment on it in this House.

As the reply of the Minister is completely unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Health why, under Circular H.M. (55) 46, of 10th May, 1955, he now requires the police to be informed of sexual acts by certified mental defectives, in addition to the normal report to the Board of Control; whether he is aware that medical superintendents have been informed by his Department that such reports to the police are still discretionary; and if he will revert to the earlier procedure by withdrawing the circular.

The circular was issued after consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department because the earlier procedure, which had only been in force since 1951, did not have sufficient regard to the duty of the police to investigate criminal offences. The circular advises but does not require cases to be reported to the police. I am aware of no good reason for its withdrawal.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the police should prosecute in cases like this? Is it not the fact that the old arrangements have been working quite satisfactorily? Why does the Minister want to place this additional burden on medical superintendents?

There are certain cases which, by the 1913 Act, are in effect criminal offences which come within the terms of this circular. The hon. Member referred to the previous practice, but we are getting back to the practice which operated before 1951. This is a matter of doctor-patient relationship, and the final decision whether the police should be notified is left to the medical superintendent.

asked the Minister of Health what communications he has now received from the Brooks Appliance Company about the termination of its contract to supply appliances through the National Health Service.

I have received no direct communication from this company. I have seen copies of a leaflet they have given to patients.

In view of the concern caused by this leaflet, does not the Minister think it would be as well if he got in touch with this firm and tried to clear up this matter?

There are 150 firms which manage under the provisions of the drug tariff to provide perfectly adequate trusses for the National Health Service. I do not accept in any way that those trusses are inferior, and if the company wants to put a case to me on that matter, it is for it to do so.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement regarding the use of Salk vaccine in the experimental treatment of poliomyelitis in Great Britain.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 17th June.

Whilst we welcome the fact that we in this country are to proceed with care and caution and proper research before using this vaccine publicly, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that satisfactory facilities and provision of appliances for research work are now being made?

That is one of the matters on which, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have asked to be advised by the Central Health Services Council. The Medical Research Council are, of course, already giving thought to that question.

Is this vaccine still being manufactured in this country by the two firms which the right hon. Gentleman named in a previous discussion?

I think it is only in active production by one of the firms I mentioned earlier in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to lessen the dangers to spectators of motor racing.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to secure greater safety in motor racing in this country.

I have been asked to reply, also to Question No. 55. I understand that the Royal Automobile Club, which controls motor racing in this country, has instituted a special review of the present arrangements in the light of the recent accident at Le Mans. The information at present before my right hon. and gallant Friend does not suggest that action is called for on his part.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to forbid companies whose shares it holds from taking part in price-fixing rings.

I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) on 16th June. The companies, in common with the companies returned to private ownership, are members of a wide range of trade associations. If the hon. Member has evidence of abuse or undesirable practices, he will no doubt bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to consideration for reference to the Monopolies Commission.

is there not clear evidence that these firms are engaging in price fixing and common tendering? Why should they have to go through the whole process and rigmarole of going to the Monopolies Commission, which may take two or three years, whereas by a simple act the Chancellor of the Exchequer could forbid this practice immediately?

This is not rigmarole. The President of the Board of Trade is referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission to obtain a report on whether certain aspects of these practices are desirable or otherwise. It would be quite wrong to prejudge the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in the present opinion of Her Majesty's Government there is no abuse at all in these practices, that they are perfectly happy to allow them to go on for a year or two until the Monopolies Commission report, and are not prepared to take any action to deal with these abuses meanwhile?

No. As I told the right hon. Gentleman the other day, I know of no practices that are now extant among these companies which did not exist when he was Minister of Supply. I am absolutely certain that it would be wrong for the Government to do anything to prejudice the present reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Is it not the position that this Government are taking action whereas the Labour Government failed to take action?

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head precisely.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no single example of such price fixing came to light or was quoted by any public authority or received any comment whatsoever during the period of nationalisation? If such price fixing had come to light, the Government of that day would certainly have taken immediate action to deal with it.

I cannot be held responsible if there was lack of knowledge on the part of the Labour Government.