asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give some details concerning the voluntary agreement reached by the laundry organisations, the British Standards Institution and the representatives of his Department on the problem of textile labelling for washing and cleaning purposes.

I am informed that the terms of this agreement are still under discussion, though good progress has been made since the hon. Lady last asked a Question on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very pleased to hear that some progress is being made after all these years? Does he hope that if I put down a Question in two or three weeks time, we may have reached the ultimate goal of this discussion?

While not giving any undertaking about that, I think that the hon. Lady's Questions and my replies are helping to speed it along.

Can the Minister say what is holding up the settlement?

It is only the drafting of fairly complicated arrangements involving quite a number of persons. Arriving at a voluntary agreement does take a little time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the rayon industry in confirmation of their assurance to him that rayon cloths satisfying tests of shrink resistance and colour fastness would be marked for convenience of shoppers as stated by him to the House on 12th November, 1953.

In addition to the performance standards referred to in my answer of 12th November, 1953, a British Standard has been agreed and published for the construction of certain warp-knitted cloths.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him what the rayon industry had done in confirmation of its pledge to him? Is he further aware that although he gave that pledge to the House in all good faith, it has not been honoured? What steps does he propose to take to see that it is honoured?

I am aware of those facts, but the circumstances in which I was given an undertaking by the rayon industry—which was not kept by it—have been debated and explained, or at least analysed, upon a number of occasions. I do not think I can add anything further.

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he gave the undertaking in good faith, but what happens to the consumer? Good faith does not produce good materials. Is the President just to let the matter go at that?

It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce a system of compulsory labelling.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult the Newspaper Proprietors Association, the Weekly Newspapers Periodical Proprietors Association and the Independent Television Authority as a preliminary to legislation to control the acceptance of hire purchase advertisements.

The Newspaper Proprietors Association, the Periodical Proprietors Association and the Independent Television Authority have already been asked for their views on this subject.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel able to be a little more forthcoming and able to tell the House what their views were? Is not the Newspaper Proprietors Association already careful with regard to the type of advertisement it accepts in its newspapers?

It is true that some improvement has taken place in the standard of these advertisements, which is a matter which we should all take into account in considering the question of legislation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of his discussions with the Iron and Steel Board about the industry's plans for meeting our requirements of steel, particularly of plate and sheet, in the next five years.

I am advised by the Iron and Steel Board that steel production is expected to increase over the three years 1956–1958 by more than 3 million ingot tons. Within this overall figure, there will be substantial increases in sheet capacity and some increases towards the end of the period in plate capacity. Plans for succeeding years are under consideration.

In view of the fact that we imported £88 million worth of steel last year, and also that because of the growth of the engineering industry and the orders which have been recently received by the shipbuilding industry in particular, the demand for steel will rise, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has a certain responsibility for the expansion plan? Are the rumours correct that private firms now owning the bulk of the industry are unwilling to take the risk of this expansion?

I do not think that there is any truth in these rumours, but the hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to the importance of the expansion plan, which is under close consideration by the Board, whose first responsibilty it is.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now withdraw tariff protection from all complete or partial monopolies, and from industries indulging in price-fixing agreements.

No, Sir. I could not prejudge any proposal to adjust an Import Duty, but Her Majesty's Government would take into account all the relevant factors, including the structure of the industry concerned.

Can the Minister say how he aligns the two apparently contradictory policies of bringing in a stronger Monopolies Bill and, at the same time, giving tariff protection to those industries which are carrying out practices of which he apparently disapproves?

The question of tariff protection is a quite separate one which is judged upon well-established principles by the Government and, in appropriate cases, raised or lowered.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what United Kingdom tariffs he is proposing to reduce at the present session of the signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to cut the cost of living in the United Kingdom.

I cannot anticipate the outcome of these negotiations. Any reductions which we may make in our tariff will depend on the extent to which other countries are willing to make concessions in favour of our exports.

Does not the President think that in the present state of G.A.T.T. it is most essential that that Agreement is not allowed to stagnate; it must either go backwards or forwards? Unless we make positive proposals for reductions of tariffs, is not the Agreement likely to fall down before long?

If I were to state at this Box all the tariff reductions I was proposing to make, my bargaining position in Geneva would be a little embarrassed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the tariff negotiations at Geneva between participating Governments in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

No, Sir. The negotiations, which have only just begun, must be conducted in confidence, and no report can therefore be expected before their conclusion.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not introduce any new or increased tariffs or other import restrictions which might not only wreck the Geneva Conference but have serious repercussions in countries to which we export, and so adversely affect our export trade?

If we are to have successful negotiation, we ought to leave the hands of our negotiators free.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that no fewer than five Commonwealth countries have not bothered—in my view rightly so—to send their delegations to the G.A.T.T. meeting? How does my right hon. Friend reconcile this fact with his own repeated assertions that the Commonwealth were enthusiastically in favour of this organisation?

There are many activities in this organisation other than this particular round of tariff negotiation; which indeed is not being conducted over a very wide front owing to the fact that the United States are limited to reductions of about 15 per cent. in any event.

While agreeing that negotiators should be left a free hand, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that they should not be given a free hand to put G.A.T.T. into reverse?

I do not think there is any question of this Government having put G.A.T.T. into reverse.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what attitude was adopted by Her Majesty's Government towards the limitation of the tariff negotations at Geneva, whereby such negotiations may be conducted only on a selective product-by-product basis, and for what reasons.

Her Majesty's Government fully supported the decision of the contracting parties to conduct the present negotiations on the usual product-by-product basis. An alternative plan was at one stage presented which would not, in my view, have ensured equitable results for all participating countries.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the bilateral approach does not seem to offer very much hope for substantial reductions? Will he press for further negotiations with a view to all-round reductions in tariffs?

This is not a bilateral approach. This is a multilateral tariff negotiation on exactly the same basis as those which took place at Annecy and Torquay.

Would my right hon. Friend take steps to oppose the policy of the Liberal Party, who want to return to free trade, the system which ruined agriculture in this country and very nearly brought us to starvation in two world wars?

What I am concerned with in the context of this question is to conduct negotiations satisfactorily to the interest of this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to intro duce his new Monopolies Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Monopolies Bill.

I hope to introduce a Bill some time in February.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the dollar cost of bentonite imported from the United States of America during 1955.

Bentonite is not separately distinguished in the trade returns, but the dollar cost of imports in 1955 is estimated to be of the order of £150,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that five well-known foundries in this country are all agreed upon the very high quality of British-made standard bentonite? Will he not therefore consider imposing some form of restriction or control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said some form of control—in order to help the British manufacturers of bentonite, who did very well for this country during the war?

I fully accept the efficiency and competence of manufacturers here, but I would point out that this is a useful raw material, used by the steel founders. The producers here have the benefit of a 10 per cent. duty.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the concern that has arisen as a result of the trade gap for 1955 having worsened by £265 million, when compared with 1954; and what action is to be taken to deal with the situation.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th January, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Is not the right hon. Gentleman much more deeply concerned than was suggested in the answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am just as deeply concerned as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As uncertainty about the Government's policy in relation to the balance of payments is damaging in many ways, can the President at least say how soon the Government will make up their mind and make a statement?

At this stage I do not wish to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in increasing trade between this country and China; and what are the prospects for the next 12 months.

Trade between this country and China was 28 per cent. higher in 1955 than in the previous year. The prospects are that it will be maintained at this level in 1956.

Is the Minister satisfied that we are doing the best we can? Is he not aware that in many responsible quarters there is still a feeling that the Government have been far too cautious in matters of this sort?

The figures show a substantial increase.

It is not good enough.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for about three years we have never been given a clear answer to the question of the Government's attitude with regard to trade with China? Now, nearly three years after the end of the fighting in Korea, is it not time that this boycott was relaxed, and the same restrictions placed upon trade with China as apply to trade with Eastern Europe?

That question, although pertinent, raises wider issues than can be dealt with simply by way of question and answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that exports to British East Africa are at a great disadvantage compared with those of continental and other Commonwealth countries owing to port and shipping delays; and if he will consult with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation with a view to overcoming these difficulties.

I am indeed aware of the complaint referred to by my hon. Friend, and my Department is in consultation with other Departments with a view to relieving the situation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the activities of the oil companies in connection with the distribution of petroleum in this country and, in particular, their purchase of and control over a high proportion of the petrol filling stations.

I am not proposing for the time being to make any further references to the Commission.

We all recognise that it is the common practice of successive Presidents not to state in advance what references they will make, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very full and fair article in a recent copy of the Economist dealing with this matter? When he is considering his next reference, will he also take into account the effect upon the distribution of oil, petrol, and, above all, accessories, by the practice of oil companies buying up one petrol station after another and tying them all up?

I have read the article and will bear the point in mind.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind what the article says about dealing with the restrictive practices on the other side of the industry when he deals with the employers' side?

Does not the President recall that it is now at least three years since he said that he was considering the reference of this industry to the Monopolies Commission? Can he say why he has been unable to make up his mind during those years?

My mind is made up, but I have not made a reference. I am considering the points put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Denmark concerning the proposed tariff on the import into Denmark of British textile goods; and if he will make a statement.

Most of the Danish textile duties were bound under the G.A.T.T. in 1949 in the form of the then existing specific duties with permitted ad valorem alternatives. The latter are about equivalent to the prewar incidence of the specific duties. A change to these alternative duties, which is what is proposed, would be within Denmark's international obligations, and there is no ground on which Her Majesty's Government could base representations.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although this is quite legal it may be very damaging to the interests of this country? Is he quite satisfied that this proposed action by Denmark has no connection with the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to place a tariff on Danish bacon?

No, Sir. I do not think there is any connection between the two.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been consulted about the discussions now going on with the Danes over the imposition of a tariff on Danish bacon? If so, what representations has he made to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against these proposals?

The Government stand as one upon these matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and other representatives of trade and industry as to the possibility of extending the scheme initiated by the cement industry for fixing maximum prices for a definite period.

I do not think consultations such as my hon. Friend suggests are necessary, but I will bear the point in mind in my contacts with representatives of trade and industry. While the circumstances of individual industries vary widely, industrialists are well aware of the importance which the Government attaches to their efforts to keep costs and prices down.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this very commendable example might well be followed by trade unions in their demand for higher wages?

Will not the President of the Board of Trade also consult the Government-owned British Petroleum Company and ask them to give some kind of undertaking not to increase prices, say for the next twelve months?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of steel confronting the crane industry; and whether he will curtail the large amount of unfabricated steel now exported.

I am aware that crane makers are having difficulties in obtaining their full needs of steel from home production as are other manufacturing industries. Production of steel is increasing and direct exports of steel are being limited.

I am sure that the industry will be glad to hear that direct exports of steel are being limited. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this industry exports one third of its production and could export more? Could he therefore say definitely whether representations have been made to the board that more should be put on the home market by this industry?

Production is expanding, and there is a voluntary arrangement to restrict exports to the 1955 level. I am sure that my noble Friend will bear in mind that some of these exports are to United Kingdom companies overseas.

Is not the Minister aware that, in spite of very high imports of steel into this country at a very considerable dollar cost, not only the crane industry but many other essential industries are chronically short of steel at the present time? Does not he agree that this is mainly due to the expansion in unlicensed and now free-of-licence and unnecessary building? Would not the right hon. Gentleman be able to deal with the problem raised by his noble Friend and maintain our steel exports if he were to introduce control upon entirely unnecessary building?

I am very doubtful whether that would be a useful approach to the subject, and in any event it raises quite other questions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that goods purchased on the hire system have been reclaimed after most of the price has been paid and the regular payments continued because the purchaser has sold the article; and if he will introduce legislation to protect such people where the required conditions regarding periodic payments are being carried out.

A hirer has no right to dispose of goods which he is acquiring on hire-purchase without obtaining the permission of the owner and can claim no protection if he does so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a case came before a court recently where a man had paid 75 per cent. of the cost of an article, and it had been confiscated because he sold it to someone else, although he was prepared to continue the periodical payments for the article?

I am aware of these difficulties, but a man really ought not to sell what does not belong to him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Central Electricity Authority has increased its hire purchase trade by over 100 per cent., and is charging only 6 per cent. interest, whereas private traders charge up to 16 per cent. interest; and if he will take steps to put the private traders on equal terms with the nationalised industry.

The last Annual Report of the Authority shows that a development of this kind took place after the withdrawal of the Hire Purchase Control Orders in July, 1954. It has however, I understand, been checked since the restrictions imposed by the Orders of February and July, 1955, which apply to transactions of the public boards and private traders alike. The answer to the last part of the Question is: No, Sir; the rates of interest charged to customers are a matter for the area electricity boards and other traders respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Electrical Contractors' Association formed a finance company to lower the charges made to their customers, that the scheme was passed by the Board of Trade some twelve months ago but was stopped by the Capital Issues Committee? Does he think it is fair that nationalised industries should have facilities for hire purchase business that are better than can be offered by the trade?

Questions on this nationalised industry ought to be put to my hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friends make up their minds whether their objection to the nationalised industries is that they charge too much or charge too little?

I was not aware that I said anything specifically critical of the nationalised industries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern at the two points increase in the cost-of-living index for November, following a similar increase the previous month; and, in view of the importance of the matter, if he will state what action is being taken to prevent further increases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the rise in the retail price index from 129 to 154 during his predecessor's tenure of office; and what proposals he has for reducing the cost of living.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on Tuesday.

But that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain how it is that, despite the solemn pledges given, the cost of living rose in 1955 faster than in any other year since 1951? Is he surprised mat in this morning's News Chronicle the Gallup Poll shows that if a General Election were held now he and his party would be badly walloped?

I do not know about being badly walloped. We cannot debate that matter now, and I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend has said.

If we cannot debate the matter now, can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will at least be no further rises in the cost of living in the next six months?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman gave no similar assurance when he occupied my present office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that sterling will continue to be maintained at $2.80.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make about his intentions regarding the maintenance of the exchange value of sterling.

Yes, Sir. The statement made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor at Istanbul in September, 1955, represents Government policy and stands. With permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can we take it that this promise made by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be no devaluation has much more merit and has meant more than similar assurances given by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer?

If, as the President of the Board of Trade said just now. the Government do not know what their policy is, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that this policy will maintain the value of the £?

My right hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. I can give a most unqualified assurance to the House and to the country that the Lord Privy Seal's statement at Istanbul still stands as Government policy.

On a point of order. I gave notice earlier this afternoon that I was not putting Question No. 49, and the hon. Gentleman was so informed. We would like to have a clear answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that without intending any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman.

I am sorry. I meant no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate legislation which will enable the courts to assess damages for loss of earnings without regard to the injured party's tax liability but which will make any such damages liable to assessment for tax over a period.

The question of amending the law governing damages for loss of earnings from physical injury does not fall within my right hon. Friend's province. He is not at present satisfied that any alteration of the tax law in this matter is called for.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision of the courts? Although the position before this decision was unfair to the Chancellor, in that the successful litigant obtained the benefit of the tax, does he not think that it is even more unfair to the Chancellor now that the unsuccessful litigant obtains the benefit of the tax? Is not this really a tax matter?

I understand that on the Order Paper for a future day there is a Question addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which is connected with the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. I think that it would be better for us to see what answer is given to that Question before we follow up all the tax implications.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in preparing his next Budget, he will give priority to the repayment of post-war credits in cases of hardship.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 3rd November last.

But a new Chancellor of the Exchequer has been appointed since then. Can we not therefore have some assurance of a new approach to this problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear in mind that there are still innumerable cases of grave hardship to elderly people who are entitled to their post-war credits but are unable to get them?

I said in November that I had great personal sympathy with those who have been holding post-war credits for a long period. No Government of any political colour has been able so far to find a solution to the hardship problem, but I grant to the hon. Member and to the House that there is a problem here and that, if we could find a solution to it, it would be very helpful.

Would my right hon. Friend look at those cases where hardship arises through disease, war disability and the like, and try to find a limited solution there at least?

The fundamental difficulty is to find a definition which will correctly demarcate hardship. Whatever the form of words one settled upon one might well find that there were some even harder cases which would be left out, and one wishes to try to do justice to everyone.

Would the Financial Secretary explain to the House what effect might be produced on our credit if the Government of the United Kingdom treated all its war loan debts in the same way as it has treated these post-war credits?

That goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper. There are some £520 million worth of post-war credits outstanding, and I do not think that the major question could be dealt with outside a Budget.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the minds of many people the inflationary implications of repaying post-war credits in full are outweighed by the moral obligation of the State to discharge this debt? Is he aware that there is a continuing public anxiety on the matter which should be redressed in the forthcoming Budget?

I have taken note of everything that has been said in the House today, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of £1 now in purchasing power as compared with 20s. purchasing power in October, 1951.

Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20 shillings in October, 1951, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for December, 1955, was 17s. 7d. This estimate is based on the consumer price index between 1951 and 1954, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise in what a difficult position many of us who are asked to address National Savings rallies are placed, when since 1951, under a Conservative Administration, any saver would have lost 2s. 5d. in every £ he saved?

The fact still remains that nothing could do more to halt the progress of inflation than an increase in private savings.

Does not the Economic Secretary think that he owes the country an apology for those figures?

But is there not some degree of satisfaction in the fact that the value of the £ has fallen very much less under a Conservative Government than it did under a Socialist Government?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement regarding the effect of the new valuation of property on Schedule A payments.

The new rating valuation which comes into force in England and Wales next April can have no effect on the existing Schedule A assessments on property without specific legislation. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income made certain recommendations in its final Report, but my right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately how much is being spent per annum on fundamental scientific research in this country.

It is not possible to give any reliable estimate of total expenditure. For expenditure out of public funds, I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix A of the Memorandum on the Civil Estimates, which summarises the amounts provided on Votes in connections with research and development.

I am much obliged for that answer, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the figure, it is quite inadequate if this country is to hold its own with the immense sums being spent on scientific research in Soviet Russia?

From the debate which we had last July, I think that the House will know how near this is to my heart, and I am very glad that there seems good prospect of the Imperial College development in South Kensington going forward.

Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, can he say when it is proposed to introduce the legislation necessary before the Imperial College can get a site on which to build?

It is not for me to decide when legislation will be presented to the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in approving university grants for the next quinquennium, he will ensure that specific funds are allocated for scientific research at university institutions to meet the urgent and growing national needs of technological education.

My right hon. Friend will take full account of the needs of technological education in determining the amount of grant to be made available to the universities through the University Grants Committee. Recurrent grants are in aid of their general income, and it is not proposed to earmark part of them for specific purposes.

Does not the Financial Secretary think that that is very unsatisfactory, because we shall not get adequate sums spent on technical education unless the University Grants Committee has power to earmark moneys for that purpose?

I have had experience on both sides of the University Grants Committee, because I was at one time a member of the Court of the University of London. It was with the full agreement of the universities that the practice of earmarking recurrent grants was abandoned. Discretion is now left to the universities.

In view of the overriding national necessity to do everything possible to further our technological progress, will the Minister now review that policy, which was determined some years ago?

I really think that it would be better to leave it in the hands—the wise hands—of the universities and of the University Grants Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement, following his review of the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to state when he proposes to introduce legislation to improve the pensions of civil servants, local government staff, teachers, and others who retired on pensions based on smaller incomes than are at present paid, and who suffer hardship because of the rise in the cost of living.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the New Forest (Col. Crosthwaite-Eyre), on 24th January.

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend's reply gives great hope and great pleasure to thousands of very deserving people in the country, and will he ask his right hon. Friend whether he will make legislation bringing that pledge into effect a very high priority in the Government's business?

I think that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Should I be right in taking it from my right hon. Friend—and I shall be delighted if he will give me a reply—that the whole policy towards the small fixed income groups is under consideration, particularly after the Prime Minister's speech at Bradford? Could he give some guidance from the Treasury to Ministers who are now undertaking Departmental Bills so that they will know how they ought to go forward on this very important matter?

My hon. Friend and I had some discussion on this very important subject on the Motion for the Adjournment shortly before Christmas. The Questions which are on the Order Paper today concern exclusively those pensioners who derive their pensions through service to the State.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his answer covers the special disability under which people who formerly served in India may suffer?

I should not like to give a detailed answer without notice, but I hope that the Measure will be forthcoming before long.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his present estimate of the total expenditure on National Debt interest in the present financial year; and how this compares with the previous year.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Financial Statement of 19th April, 1955. It is not the practice to publish revised Budget Estimates in the course of the financial year.

Does the Financial Secretary realise that this Government are spending something like £200 million a year more than the Labour Government on debt interest and that this weighs very heavily on the balance of payments as well as on the Budget? Does he not think there is some field here for economy?

I think this is a question which is eminently suitable for debate at the time of the Budget and the Finance Bill which follows it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to provide further encouragement for savings, he will exempt from Income Tax all interest due to individual taxpayers up to a limit of £50 per annum.

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on the important question of incentives to save. In any case my hon. Friend will realise that his suggestion would be a matter for the Budget, which I cannot anticipate.

Will the Minister recall what was said only a few minutes ago by the Economic Secretary about the vital importance of saving to the check on inflation? Will he also bear in mind that some Income Tax relief of this kind might not only lead to a spectacular increase in savings but would, almost for the first time in this century, mean that thrift would be rewarded instead of being penalised?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already shown to the House how much importance he attaches to incentives to save, but these tax matters cannot be discussed in advance of the forthcoming Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the weekly payment per head of the population in respect of defence, housing and health and other major items of national expenditure.

Average weekly expenditure on the services provided by the Government and by local authorities, per head of the total population, during the year 1954, was as follows: on defence 12s. 8d.; on housing 3s. 8d.; on health 4s. 1d.; on education and child care 4s. 2d.; on National Insurance benefits, pensions and assistance 7s.; on National Debt interest 4s. 9d.; and on all other services 8s. 9d. I regret that similar information is not yet available for the year 1955.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether the weekly cost of housing is going down and the weekly expenditure on so-called defence is going up?

The Estimates for 1956–57 will be published shortly and will provide additional information.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this sum of 4s. 9d. to which he referred as coming under the National Debt is not largely due to the American loan incurred by the former Government on which the interest became payable in 1952?

I was cautious a few minutes ago about answering a supplementary question on the National Debt, and I think my caution had better extend to the subject under this head, too.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms of reference under which the Arts Council is to undertake a survey of the nation's needs in concert halls and theatres.

This survey comes within the scope of the Arts Council as laid down by its Charter, and my right hon. Friend therefore does not think it necessary to give the Council formal terms of reference. There will be discussion with the Council from time to time on the manner in which the survey can best be conducted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Arts Council has already committed itself, in quite definite terms, to a policy of having as few theatres as possible? Will he impress upon the Council that it should not bring such preconceived ideas to its task?

The Arts Council is a body set up with the consent, I think, of all parties in the House to handle these matters. It seems to me that as this matter lies within its terms of reference we should give the Council the opportunity of making a study of it and preparing a report.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons for reinforcing the Middle East.

I have been asked to reply.

As has already been announced, the despatch of additional troops to Cyprus has been authorised as a precautionary measure in view of the disturbed position in the Middle East, in order to increase the forces at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief for the protection of British subjects in the area, should the need arise.

As, from the answer, it appears that the troops, as the House will be glad to hear, are not needed solely to restore order in Cyprus, can we be told whether there were any consultations with other Powers interested in the Middle East, such as the three parties to the tripartite guarantee, as to the need for these troops?

I should want notice of that supplementary question in order to give an accurate reply.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is considerable indignation in Scotland at the fact that young National Service men with only three months' service are being sent to Cyprus? Does he not think that something should be done to stop that?

I should have to investigate the time factor to which the hon. Member refers—namely, three months. I am aware that certain National Service men who have been a short time so far in the Service have been sent to Cyprus. That is a matter which has been considered and which is inevitable in the circumstances.

Is not it obvious that the presence of these troops in this area at this time will be a stabilising element and will be welcome to all people who want to reduce the tension and the danger of an outbreak in the area?

The main consideration which must be before the House, as I reflect, is that these troops are in the Middle East for the purpose, should need arise, of protecting British lives, which will be regarded by all hon. Members as a not unworthy object.

Is it not to be hoped that the presence of these troops has a bigger stabilising effect than the visit of the C.I.G.S. to Jordan?

asked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Lord Privy Seal.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, one of my responsibilities is to reply to this Question on his behalf. He wishes me to say that as Leader of the House my chief responsibility will be to handle the Government's programme of legislation and other Government business in Parliament.

My right hon. Friend has also asked me to answer Questions in this House on the atomic energy matters which are within the field of responsibility of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. These Questions should be put down for Wednesdays, when they will be placed at No. 45 or after any Questions there may be for the Prime Minister.

While noting the right hon. Gentleman's new interest in atomic energy, can he say whether he has special responsibility for the future policy of the Government, including economic policy? Will he say whether he works whole-time for the Government or whether part of his time is spent at the Conservative Central Office?

Modesty forbids me from defining the many duties which will fall to my lot inside the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman may well be satisfied that my time is devoted to the service, first of all, of the House of Commons, and secondly, to the interests of the country.

Could the right hon. Gentleman not say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that one of the greatest responsibilities of the present Lord Privy Seal is that of allowing the cost of living in this country to shoot up through the roof in the last four years?

The hon. Lady is looking to matters which I should like to have an opportunity of debating with her on some future occasion when I could give a more adequate reply, and a convincing one, to her allegations.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury to what extent Her Majesty's Stationery Office is affected by the dispute in the printing industry; and what effects there will be on the printing of Parliamentary papers.

Serious delays may occur in the printing for Government Departments by H.M. Stationery Office Printing Works and by the numerous commercial printers who hold Stationery Office contracts. As far as can be foreseen, the only Parliamentary printing which may be delayed are Reports of Standing Committees, which may be delivered to Members a day later than usual, and HANSARD for Fridays, which may not be delivered to Members until the following Monday morning.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet reached a decision on the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses.

Final decisions have not yet been reached.

As the Minister has been giving that reply month after month, could he not at least reach a decision on the question of Sunday slaughtering which so much affects the expenditure of local authorities?

As I have said before, I am as anxious as the hon. Member to get a firm proposal before the House at the earliest moment. I am equally anxious to get the widest possible measure of agreement before I forward definite proposals. I feel that a few months spent in doing that will be time very well spent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress made in carrying out the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954; and if he will make a statement.

I have no reason to doubt that in general satisfactory progress is being made; but in a number of cases stricter enforcement is needed, and I am taking appropriate action when such cases come to my notice.

May I ask the Minister if he has received the usual co-operation from animal welfare societies, for instance, the International League for the Protection of Horses?

I am in close touch with the International League for the Protection of Horses, and its advice and help is of very great use to me. I wish to thank the hon. Member for the interest and very constructive part he has taken in the furtherance of these measures to increase the humanity of slaughtering conditions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why large quantities of maize are being obtained from the dollar area when there is a surplus of maize in the Union of South Africa.

Following the ending of Government control, the import of maize is a matter for private importers who are free to obtain supplies from any source. Substantial quantities of South African maize are, however, being imported.

Is it not a fact that last year much more maize was imported from the United States than from South Africa? Is that not unwise in view of the shortage of dollars? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider using the tariff weapon to increase the import of maize from the Empire?