asked the Secretary of State for War why 2312670 Private B. F. Cammell, rejected by the Royal Air Force because of having Grade II( a ) feet preventing him from being called upon in the Royal Air Force to serve abroad, is being sent by his Department to Japan; how he is now employed; and what consideration has been given to his discharge because of his foot troubles.

I have checked up on this case and recent examination shows that his foot trouble is not serious and should not hinder him in his job as a pay clerk at home or abroad.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this man has Grade II( a ) (feet), that he was rejected by the Royal Air Force because of that, and that this grading is the same as the grading of a well-known cricketer who has been rejected by the Royal Air Force and excused National Service altogether? Is this right?

It is not for me to make comparisons, because that is not part of the Question. All I know is that this man came from the Royal Air Force. Many more men volunteer for the Royal Air Force than are required, and so far as we are concerned—and this is all I am speaking for—he has been re-examined and is perfectly fit for duties as a pay clerk at home or abroad.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a man can be rejected by the R.A.F. as unfit to go overseas because of his physical condition and yet the Army will not only take him but will send him overseas? Why this difference?

I have already told the hon. Member that there are many more men who want to join the R.A.F. than the National Service requirements need. Inevitably many who want to join the R.A.F. are not taken.

Why does not the Army take the cricketer then?

asked the Secretary of State for War why 23082491 Gunner F. Thompson is being retained in view of the condition of both feet; what was the date of his call-up; what was his grade when called up; why he is excused all parades and marching; what type of footwear he is called upon to use; and if he is aware that a foot specialist at the Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich, has informed him that an operation would not be successful and advised amputation.

Gunner Thompson was called up on 4th November, 1954, having been placed in Grade II( a ) (feet). He is excused guards, marching and all parades except the morning muster parade because of foot trouble; he wears Service pattern shoes. The specialist at the Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich, recently offered to remove the soldier's right little toe, which was giving some pain, but the offer was refused. Gunner Thompson is retained in the Army because he is fit to carry out his work as an equipment repairer which does not entail much standing.

Why does the Secretary of State say that this man was accepted as Grade II( a ) (feet) when I have his medical card here which says he is Grade III? Will he look into the case again? In view of the pain which this man is suffering, will he not discharge him from the Army? If he will not, where is the fair play in National Service? Win he accept these photographs of this man's feet, which show that he is totally unfitted to serve under National Service in the Army when others are going scot-free?

This case has been investigated by an expert and I must judge by his report. Whether or not the hon. Member knows better, I cannot tell. All I can say is that the man came in Grade II( a ) (feet) but since then, because of this little toe trouble—the little toe which he did not wish to have amputated—he has been regraded one grade lower.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for a home posting for Barry Pearce, of 13, Upham Road, Swindon, in view of the family circumstances to which his attention has been drawn.

Mr. Barry Pearce has not yet been called up, and it is not therefore certain whether he will even serve in the Army.

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department has already taken some interest in the matter, will he at least be good enough to pass the papers on to the Ministry of Labour and National Service and do what he can to see that this particularly difficult case is sympathetically considered?

Frankly, I do not think the question of posting can arise until the man goes to a unit. The only interest in him which we have taken so far is to try to find out which of the many Barry Pearce's in the Army the hon. Member had in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the Monmouth Agricultural Executive Committee is now backing the appeal of Mr. C. Handford, Sea Bank Farm, Rumney, that he should be excused his Territorial Army training in view of his commitments on his farm, he will reconsider his previous decision.

I regret that I cannot meet the hon. Member's request. Mr. Handford was excused annual training in 1953 and 1954, and has had a lot of time to arrange for his business to be carried on during his absence.

Is it not the case that this man is single-handed and has been building up a stock of 1,000 head of poultry and 60 pigs and has a door-to-door sale of eggs?

Tory agricultural policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee says that he will have to dispose of this business? Does the Secretary of State think it fair to require a young man to give this up to do a fortnight's Territorial training? It is quite clear that the young man cannot make alternative arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman made it sound a very strong case, but, in fact, his father and brother farm next door to him. He has a 12-acre farm. It is true that the Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee put up the case last year, but I understand that it has not done so this year.

It has.

I am informed that it has not. The Ministry of Agriculture has been approached, and I understand that it does not support this recommendation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to a letter from the National Farmers' Union, a copy of which I have in my hand, dated 28th April and supporting this application—a letter which should have reached him by now? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not checked these facts, for the man's father is ill and cannot work—and that, too, is in the papers which he has in front of him. Does he not know that the brother is wholly engaged in working the father's farm because the latter cannot work? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated all these facts adequately, as is shown by his answer, will he please reconsider the matter?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was wrong. The Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee has never handled this case or had anything to do with it. At least I know more about it than does the hon. Gentleman. It was handled by the Glamorgan Agricultural Committee in each case.

By both.

That body has not considered the case this year, nor has it approached the hon. Gentleman, as I am informed—and he may correct me if I am wrong. The Ministry of Agriculture does not support the application. I have stated the facts, which I have taken the trouble to find out.

asked the Secretary of State for War if National Service men, serving their third year on the reserve with the Territorial Army or the Army Emergency Reserve, but whose camp was cancelled this year, will be required to attend a training camp in 1956.

No, Sir, except for those who did not complete their training liability in their first two years of part-time service.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make such changes in the organisation and training of the Army Emergency Reserve as may be necessary to enable that Reserve to be effectively mobilised and deployed in the event of a major conflict.

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made for the periodical examination of the troop concentration depot situated in Tottenham Court Road, London.

A hygiene expert inspects the London Assembly Centre once a month and there are weekly unit hygiene inspections. The General Officer Commanding London District inspects the centre once a year to see that it is functioning efficiently.

asked the Secretary of State for War what bedding accommodation is provided in the troop concentration depot situated in Tottenham Court Road, London; and at what intervals the bedding is cleaned or changed.

Mattress covers are changed once a week, and mattresses are fumigated every three months. Each man gets clean blankets.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these arrangements are being carried out?

As I have said, this centre is inspected once a month by a hygiene expert and G.O.C. London District. They inform me that these arrangements are carried out. Occasionally, if we have a lot of fog and aircraft are grounded, the centre gets overcrowded, and then conditions are not all we want.

Am I to understand that when aircraft are grounded the effect is felt in Tottenham Court Road?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many times during each year for the past five years has the ventilation plant in the troop concentration depot in Tottenham Court Road, London, been found to be defective; and what arrangements are made for the accommodation of troops whilst the ventilation plant is defective.

There are two recorded cases during the past five years on which the ventilation plant in the London Assembly Centre has failed. On each occasion the failure was due to a motor breakdown and the plant was repaired within a few days. About once a month the plant is closed down for up to two hours for maintenance but this short closure has no appreciable effect.

Will the Secretary of State keep a very close watch on this centre, because it should be obvious to him that these Questions have arisen because of complaints. It is quite clear to those who know Queen's Regulations that they allow men to make complaints, but there are certain complaints which, if made, indicate that the soldier or Service man is what we call effeminate—although the Army and the other Forces have another name for it.

asked the Secretary of State for War how much expenditure he has incurred in Cyprus in the year ended 30th June.

Total expenditure including pay, food, rent, works, etc., amounts to about £6 million.

Is the Minister aware that he is piling up a very heavy bill in Cyprus and that it looks as if Cyprus is going to cost more than the groundnuts scheme? What is he doing to cut expenditure in Cyprus?

We do everything we can to cut expenditure in Cyprus, but I can assure the hon. Member that the value of Cyprus strategically is far greater than the value of the groundnuts commercially.

asked the Secretary Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to indicate the establishment of personnel and scale of equipment agreed for each Mobile Defence Corps Reserve Battalion.

Provisional establishments for both rescue and fire battalions have been fixed by the War Office and Air Ministry in consultation with the Home Office. These battalions will be on the general lines of the Civil Defence and Fire Service units. Rescue battalions will have three companies providing 54 rescue sections and one ambulance company of 54 ambulances. Fire battalions will consist of five mobile companies each with six fire trucks. Scales of equipment have been fixed except for a few details.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to set these details out so that hon. Members may see the actual composition of this battalion?

Speaking without notice, I can see no objection to that at the moment, and if possible I will do so.

If he cannot send copies to every hon. Member, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to place all the available information in the Library?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the feeling in Portsmouth at the continued requisitioning of the Royal Pier Hotel, especially in view of the shortage of hotel accommodation for visitors; how long the hotel has now been unoccupied; and what action he proposes now to take.

We acquired the freehold of this hotel from the Ministry of Health in May, 1954. Internal alterations and repairs are being done to make it suitable for an Army families hostel. It should be ready for occupation by the end of this year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this hotel has been vacant for ten years and that, as it has been entirely unoccupied for that period, this represents ten years' loss of rates? Is he aware that the corporation are very angry about it? Will he please make some offer of compensation to the rates? Is he aware that my constituents regard it as a second Crichel Down?

I do not want to "pass the buck," but this hotel was nothing to do with us before we got it in May, 1954. I am not the right person to ask about anything which happened before that. As for its functions, it is essential to have places where these homeless families can go in England when soldiers have gone abroad. I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be fulfilling a vital purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for War the existing regulations with regard to the use of handcuffs in the Army, with particular reference to those on a court-martial charge.

If a commanding officer considers handcuffs necessary to ensure the safe-custody of an accused soldier, he may direct that the accused be escorted to and from his court-martial in handcuffs. It is however laid down that no soldier under escort, whether in handcuffs or not, will be marched through public thoroughfares or taken on buses or underground trains. One cannot avoid a prisoner in handcuffs having to cross the street from the vehicle in which he has been conveyed to court into the building.

Will my right hon. Friend assure himself that these regulations were scrupulously observed in a recent court-martial in Germany?

Yes, Sir. I have looked into that case and I am satisfied that the accused was taken in a vehicle. The photographs were taken in the very brief interval between his leaving the vehicle and entering the court.

asked the Secretary of State for War the circumstances under which the British Army of the Rhine is graded as being on home service.

Service in Germany does not count as overseas service because the distribution of our Forces at home, in Europe and elsewhere overseas does not permit it. In other respects men serving in Germany are deprived of no benefits by the fact that service there does not count towards an overseas tour, and, in fact, they get some additional benefits such as free leave travel to this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that members of the Royal Air Force serving in Germany are regarded as on overseas service creates an anomaly which must be very difficult for members of the British Army of the Rhine to understand?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The fact is that the world-wide deployment of the Royal Air Force allows it to count Germany as overseas, but such is our deployment that if we were to count Germany as overseas it may be that we would have hardly any troops at present on home service.

Since Western Germany has regained her independence, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any compensation is being granted to British troops serving in that territory, having regard to the fact that they had concessions when they were occupation troops which at that time it was thought they might lose?

That is an important subject, but I do not think it arises out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will obtain an undertaking from serving officers that they will refrain from using their military rank and title after retirement from active service.

No, Sir. I see no reason for such a change.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people running about with high-sounding titles have never seen any active service and they flash these titles about politically? If he is not prepared to make this request to commissioned officers, will the Minister give warrant officers and non-commissioned officers the right to use their titles?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that warrant officers and sergeants have permission, if they wish, to use their rank after they have left the Service. This is a fairly optional matter. If anyone wants to retain his rank, it is a sign that he is proud of having served in the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War what proficiency regimental barbers are required to attain; and if they are allowed to give National Service men any choice of hair style when operating upon them.

Paragraph 1,003 of Queen's Regulations states that hair will be kept short. A soldier may please himself what style he wears provided this rule is observed. There is no establishment for regimental barbers and, although units usually provide civilian or soldier barbers, any man may choose his own civilian hairdresser.

Is the Minister aware that many of the people who practise their art as hairdressers upon National Service men are more fitted to practise the arts of a carpenter or a metal shearer? Will he look at a photograph I have? I have not brought it here, as I think it is not desirable to make an exhibition of this House. It is of a National Service man who looks a perfect fright after the operations of a regimental barber. This is a very important question. If we are to encourage National Service men to continue in the Service, we have to treat them as human beings. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the way in which some of these Service men are treated.

I am all in favour of people having decent haircuts. I will certainly look at the photograph and take the matter up.

Have any instructions been given about trimming moustaches in the Army?

Order, order.

asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent losses of arms or ammunition from Government stores in Cyprus have occurred in recent months.

The right hon. Member may be referring to recent reports in the Press about the theft of arms. I am informed that no arms or ammunition from Army stocks have passed into the hands of civilians in Cyprus.

Bearing in mind the depredations which occurred in the Middle East—not far from Cyprus—and the very disturbed circumstances which now prevail in Cyprus, has the right hon. Gentleman issued stringent orders that commanding officers should pay very close attention to possible thefts or disappearance of arms from military establishments?

That is always a standing order, particularly when local inhabitants show signs of hostility, but I would remind the right hon. Member that in the Canal Zone we had vast stores of ammunition and weapons and that situation has not obtained fully in Cyprus.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the ratification of the International Convention to facilitate the Importation of Samples and Advertising, signed by the United Kingdom Government on 30th June, 1953.

Certain small changes were necessary in our procedures to bring them into line with the provisions of the Convention. These changes have been effected by Statutory Instruments Nos. 814 and 815 which were made on 6th and 7th June. The Government propose in the near future to ratify the Convention which has not yet entered into force.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the marketing and pricing arrangements in connection with raw cotton imported into the United Kingdom, indicating in which countries there is no Government interference, and in which countries the quantity available, or the price, is interfered with; and the nature and extent of the Government interference.

The Governments of all the principal countries supplying the United Kingdom with raw cotton impose regulations which directly or indirectly affect its export price. Several of the Governments concerned also restrict the acreage for cotton growing or the amount and types of cotton exports. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed statement of the information available about the present arrangements in each of the principal supplying countries.

Can the Minister say whether the Board of Trade is being active in making representations to those countries to cease these undesirable practices?

We have, of course, no responsibility for the policies other Governments pursue. We can only intervene if they are contravening international obligations. As the hon. Member will know, this is a complicated problem and

it is greatly affected by the price charged for United States cotton.

Following is the information:

asked the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's Government have yet decided to sign the agreement to establish the Organisation for Trade Co-operation drawn up at the last session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

As was announced in the Statement of Policy regarding the review of the G.A.T.T. (Command Paper 9413), Her Majesty's Government propose to sign, at the appropriate times, the Protocols of Amendments to the General Agreement and the agreement on the Organisation for Trade Co-operation. The Protocols of Amendments are open for signature till the 15th November, 1955, and we shall arrange for their signature by that date. No date has been fixed for signature of the agreement on the Organisation for Trade Co-operation. The Government will decide when to sign it in the light of developments in the consideration of this agreement by the United States Congress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend out of their time to provide facilities for a debate on this matter before it is finally concluded? Will he look at the precedent of the original G.A.T.T. in this connection, as when that was drawn up there was a full debate in this House before we entered the commitment?

I will certainly look at that although I do not think it is a matter for me but for the Leader of the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many countries have ratified the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade agreement.

Canada, the U.S.A., Greece and Germany ad referendum, have signed the two Protocols amending the substantive provisions of the G.A.T.T. The Agreement for the Establishment of an Organisation for Trade Co-operation has been signed by Greece, by the U.S.A. subject to approval by Congress, and by Germany and Turkey ad referendum.

The U.S.A., Greece and Germany ad referendum, have signed the Protocol of organisational amendments which are consequential upon the establishment of the Organisation for Trade Co-operation.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that complicated answer, may I ask if he is aware that we are anxious to proceed with this matter so that we can take advantage of Article VI and Article XVI in the flax industry and the horticultural industry?

I have explained the Government's policy on that aspect of the matter in answer to an earlier Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real need of urgency in dealing with this matter, because at the present time first-class carrots grown in the Vale of Evesham are fetching only 1d. a bunch because of the very severe competition from Algeria?

As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, that is another question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of furniture exports from the United Kingdom in the last available period.

£643,000 of wooden furniture and £2,541,000 of metal furniture during the first five months of this year.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the exports of wooden furniture are particularly low? Will he say what the Board of Trade is doing to try to stimulate a higher level of exports in this regard?

The exports of wooden furniture are, in fact, slightly higher than last year. We would certainly welcome an expansion of these exports and are in touch with the industry.

Is it the intention of the Government to maintain the very severe restrictions on hire purchase in this country in order to stimulate exports?

That was not the object of the hire-purchase restrictions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which countries have been the principal buyers of British wool tops in the period January, 1955, to the latest convenient date; what have been the respective values of their purchases; and what were the values of purchases by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and Eastern Europe in the same period and their percentage of the total.

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

Is there any significance in the diminution of exports of wool tops to Russia during recent months?

Exports of wool tops to Russia during recent months have been almost exactly the same proportion of

Exports to China were 15.7 per cent., to the Soviet Union 2.3 per cent., and to other Soviet Eastern Europe 6.1 per cent. of the total.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how much wool Roumania imported from Great Britain for the months of January, February, March and April, 1955,

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Bill to deal with dumping to enable this country to take

total exports of wool tops as they were last year. I think they are quite satisfactory.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether there is any restriction on the export of wool tops to Russia? Is it not a fact that the Russians can get as many as they like if they are prepared to pay for them?

There are no restrictions. My hon. Friend is quite right.

Following is the answer:

with corresponding figures for the same period in 1954.

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

Following is the answer:

advantage of the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade agreement.

After the Summer Recess, we hope.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the horticultural industry is anxiously awaiting the passing of this Bill so that there can be freedom to manoeuvre in case increased protection is required for it?

I am aware of that because my hon. and gallant Friend has informed me of it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that anti-dumping legislation will not be used to give increased protection but only where there is subsidisation by the Government of an exporting country?

The point of this legislation has already been made plain, and I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that one firm of electric washer manufacturers in Accrington has had to suspend 90 workers owing to slackness of trade following hire-purchase restrictions; and whether his consideration of difficulties caused in the furniture trade will extend to electric washers and similar goods.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is ready to consider representations from anyone about the effect of these restrictions which, in this case, may have been aggravated by the rail strike.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the threatened closure of the Hosemaster factory on the Huyton Industrial Estate, of which he has been given particulars.

I am making inquiries into this matter and hope to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman very shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of silk lengths has been imported from China during each of the past three years, respectively.

Imports of silk fabrics from China were 43,000 square yards in 1952, 248,000 in 1953 and 1,170,000 in 1954.

In view of the figures given by my right hon. Friend and the very serious effect this trend is having on the people in my constituency, will he bear this industry in mind when he is dealing with the proposed Bill about dumping, and give us an assurance that it will definitely be brought in early in the autumn?

It would be a mistake to judge the imports solely on the figures of imports from China. The total imports of silk fabrics from all sources were only slightly higher in 1954 than in 1953.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that so far this year imports are up compared with last year?

Not very much, and they are very substantially down on pre-war figures.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to reduce the present minimum of £2,000 in respect of duty-free imports of machinery to £500.

No, Sir, for the reasons stated by my right hon. Friend in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) on 28th February last.

Yes, but does my right hon. Friend realise that the reply given by the President was a very unsatisfactory one, and that the minimum rate for importing this machinery hits small businesses hard? If we want to encourage small industries, we must give them equal facilities to obtain modern machinery. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this matter will be considered?

The matter was very closely considered by the Wilson Smith Committee, which went into the whole question of the duty-free licensing of imported machinery, and which recommended that there was no other way of limiting the cost of the administration of the scheme than that of imposing a comparatively high minimum value. As the House will remember, my right hon. Friend accepted the whole of that Report, and this was an important part of it. While he was considering it he was, on account of the importance of the small businesses, reluctantly forced to the conclusion that he would have to accept this part as well as the rest of the Report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this minimum hits hard the little industrialists, and that chambers of trade in this country are urging the Government to reduce the minimum to £500?

I am aware of that. All these matters have been taken into account, and they were taken fully into account by the Wilson Smith Committee, which consisted of a large number of responsible industrialists.

I am very sorry, but I shall have to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of factories built in the United Kingdom, and the annual area, for each year 1946 to 1954;

(2) the number of new factories, and the total square footage, authorised under the Distribution of Industry Act, for each of the years 1946 to 1954.

Figures are not available for the United Kingdom, but the right hon. Member will find figures for Great Britain in Table 92 of the current Monthly Digest of Statistics.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many licence applications for importing foreign coal, and in what total tonnage, he has granted this year;

(2) what percentage of United Kingdom trade is now liberalised; and why coal is excluded.

An open individual licence is held by the National Coal Board and seven specific licences have been issued during 1955 to other importers for a total of 3,747 tons of coal. Like most items, coal may be imported from the sterling area under open licence. Some two-thirds of our imports from non-sterling sources are free from quantitative restrictions, but coal is included among the items on which detailed licensing control is maintained so that proposals to import may be considered in relation to available United Kingdom supplies and the overseas expenditure involved.

Yes, but in consideration of the fact that Britain is now the largest coal importing nation in the world, why should we support a system giving favourable treatment to the National Coal Board and denying similar treatment to private enterprise merchants? Why cannot there be free and open competition in order to induce some efficiency into the Coal Board's arrangements?

I have explained in my answer why it is that quantitative restrictions have to be retained and licensing control has to be kept on. I think my hon. Friend will remember that he has been told on several occasions that licensing does not at present restrict imports of coal. All applications for licences have been met.

If it does not restrict the import of coal, why not have an open general licence? Why this discrimination against coal? When the Government's avowed policy is to obtain 90 per cent. liberalisation of trade, and when coal is so important, why discriminate against coal of all things?

It is not very important in relation to the 90 per cent. liberalisation of O.E.E.C. trade. If the hon. Member will look at the last sentence of my answer when it is printed, he will see that I have already answered his question.

How can it possibly be equitable that the whole of our private enterprise merchants bring in 3,000 tons of coal against 12 million tons of coal imported by the Coal Board?

But that is all they have asked for.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the respective aggregate values of oil and coal imports into the United Kingdom in twelve months ended on the latest date; and in respect of what tonnage of coal he has now granted an import licence to the National Coal Board.

During the year ended May, 1955, imports of petroleum and petroleum products amounted to £313 million and imports of coal to £43 million. As already stated, imports of coal are made by the National Coal Board on open individual licence.

Is it not a fact that the private enterprise merchants are not in a position to apply for additional imports of coal because the Minister of Fuel and Power controls the price of it at a level which would not enable them to show a margin of profit on the resale? In those circumstances, cannot we have equity and fair competition between the Coal Board and private enterprise?

I do not think that any of those questions arise out of the main Question. Certainly, they are not questions for me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what form of advertisement is used by his Department in bringing to the notice of industrialists sites available on trading estates in Development Areas; and what response there has been to such form of advertisement on the Aycliffe Trading Estate for the years 1951 to 1954 in view of the fact that there is ample land available on the estate for any expansion likely to be required.

The Board of Trade has used the handbook "Room to Expand," articles in the Board of Trade Journal, and booklets produced by the industrial estate companies, and has also displayed exhibits at the British Industries Fair. These describe the advantages of the Development Areas and Northern Ireland in general terms and it is not possible to measure their effect with regard to a particular trading estate.

Will the Minister not agree that everything must be done to offset any desire on the part of industrialists to go back to the "red" areas away from these Development Areas, and that everything should be done to develop sites on existing available trading estates?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what number of new factories went to the North-East Development Area for the years 1946 to 1954; and what percentage of the total of new factory works for the United Kingdom this represents;

(2) what number of new factories went to the development areas for the years 1946 to 1954; and what percentage of the total of new industrial construction in the United Kingdom went to the development areas for those years.

According to the latest information available to the Board of Trade, 2,241 new industrial buildings and extensions of more than 5,000 sq. ft. were completed in the areas which are now Development Areas in the years 1946 to 1954 inclusive. This represents 33 per cent. of the total area completed in Great Britain during the same period. The comparable figures for the North-East Development Area are 634 and 10.4 per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement of the Government's intentions with regard to the recommendations contained in the Monopolies Commission's Report on restrictive practices.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the majority recommendations of the Monopolies Commission Report on exclusive dealing, collective boycotts, aggregated rebates and other discriminatory trade practices.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to implement the suggestions made by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission in their recent Report.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government accepts, in principle, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission's recent Report on Collective Discrimination, Command Paper No. 9504.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the practice of certain tea wholesalers in withholding supplies from retailers who sell below the fixed price to old-age pensioners; and if he will now introduce legislation to prevent such practice in accordance with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to make a statement on the latest Report of the Monopolies Commission on Collective Discrimination.

It is the Government's intention to arrange for a discussion of the Monopolies Commission's Report before the Summer Recess, and I would ask hon. Members to await this.

Could the Minister give us some inkling whether the Government are favourably inclined to accepting the recommendations? Are we to take it that, as many of the culprits mentioned in the Report are heavy contributors to the Tory Party's funds, the likelihood is that the Government will not take any action that might upset the financiers who support them?

I think that the hon. Member can safely await the discussion which is to take place before the Summer Recess.

Since the hon. Gentleman will realise that the general conclusions of this Report expresses views which have been the policy on this side of the House for some years, a policy which in fact was announced from the Dispatch Box opposite before the change of Government in 1951, can the hon. Gentleman not now at least inform the House whether the Government are going to accept the majority conclusions of the Report? Is he not aware that, in reply to all Questions which the Government have been asked on these subjects and trades for two or three years, we have always been told that we must wait for the Monopolies Commission's Report, and will he not now say that he accepts it?

The Report was published last week and the debate will take place within a short time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should await that debate.

Can we be assured that not only will there be a debate but that the Government will announce what action they will take before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

I think that the hon. Member could be referred to a statement which was once made by one of his illustrious predecessors.

Is the Minister aware that his own Chancellor of the Exchequer said only a few days ago that the cost of goods is so high that something must be done about it? Why is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to take action at once on these recommendations? Why is he not prepared to do something about the restrictions imposed by private courts, which he himself said should not be put on traders?

As the hon. Member appreciates, the Report is an important and complex one which raises very big problems. I trust that the legislation which will follow may not be the worse for having been discussed previously.

Would my hon. Friend consider publishing the evidence which was taken by the Monopolies Commission, in view of the fact that ultimate policy may turn on some nicer considerations than the Commission—either the majority or the minority of its members—was able to put in the Report?

That raises a broader question of which I should like to have notice.

Would the Minister not agree that it would be very much more helpful to the whole House if the President of the Board of Trade were to make a statement of Government intentions in relation to this Report before we have the debate, in order that the debate should not appear to be merely an academic discussion on a report published by an outside body but should be a discussion on Government policy on what is easily the most important Report we have had on an industrial subject for many years?

Answer.

Is the Minister aware that one of the traders to whom my Question refers has had his supplies of tea withheld since February last because he sold supplies cheaper to old-age pensioners? Is he aware that, having called the attention of the Prime Minister to the matter, he received a telegram from the right hon. Gentleman on 26th May which said: Our policy is to obtain an impartial statement of the facts and their effect on the national interest and then to take the action appropriate in each case."? May we then ask what action the Government think is appropriate to end a scandal of this nature?

I would remind the hon. Member that a short time ago the question of monopoly interest in tea was referred to the Monopolies Commission.

Will my hon. Friend tell his right hon. Friend that the majority of people in this country would prefer the President of the Board of Trade to consider this matter very carefully, not be hurried on a Report which has been described as one of the most important Reports from any Committee, and only then express his opinion to the House?

Will the hon. Gentleman recollect that my Question asked simply whether the Government accept the Report in principle? Since that has not been answered now, can we have an assurance that it will be answered in the debate?

I think that my right hon. Friend will make a full statement.

May I ask why the President of the Board of Trade is not here to answer all these Questions?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that no industry in which monopolistic or restrictive practices have been criticised by the Monopolies Commission will be afforded protection by tariffs or quotas against foreign competitors.

When considering tariff applications, it is our policy to take into account all relevant factors, including any recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission, and I could not prejudge the outcome of a particular application. It is not the Government's policy to impose import quotas for protective purposes.

That is a most unsatisfactory answer from a Government which is said to be against monopoly. Surely one of the simplest ways in which they can exercise sanctions is at least not to give them protection so that they can put up their prices unjustifiably?

That raises a very wide question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we do take into account all the relevant factors, including any recommendation of the Commission. In actual fact it has never recommended tariff action, except in its most recent Report when it said that if an industry is to be protected the best way to do it is by tariffs and not by restrictive practices worked within the industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of the Government in relation to the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on the Process of Calico Printing.

We accept the conclusions of the Monopolies Commission that the practices described operate, and may be expected to operate, against public interest, and we were in general agreement with the Commission's recommendations. Discussions with the calico printing industry concerning detailed implementation of the Report are still in progress.

Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind the anxiety of the workers in the calico printing industry, and will he take steps, when considering the proposals, to see that their position is safeguarded?

That will be considered, but I prefer not to anticipate any further statement.