asked the President of the Board of Trade the date of the commencement of his discussions with the trade associations in so far as amendment of the Hire Purchase Act, 1954, is concerned; and if he is now in a position to make a statement as to his course of action or when he expects to be able to do so.

No discussions have taken place concerning the amendment of the Hire Purchase Act, 1954. If the hon. Lady is referring to consultations about the possibility of controlling hire-purchase advertisements, the Board of Trade first approached trade associations on this subject on 3rd August, 1955. I have still not had the considered views of all the bodies concerned, and I cannot yet say when I shall be able to make any statement.

Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that on 25th October, 1955, his Parliamentary Secretary told me in the House that consultations with trade organisations were proceeding with a view to this amendment. Is he not further aware that the matter has gone on a very long time? Is it going to be an indefinite time before he is able to make an announcement on this subject?

There is, as I see it, no possibility of any legislation on this subject this Session. Whether or not we should legislate will depend upon the state of the advertising and the effect of the various inquiries we have made during that period.

Are we to assume from the President's replies that, however urgent the need, he rules out entirely any question of any amendment concerning advertisements in this Session?

I do not think there is any possibility of legislation this Session.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement upon the result of the representations made by him to the cotton industry concerning the establishment of agreed standards for cotton cloths and household textiles in accordance with his statement in the House on 12th November, 1953.

After my statement in the House on 12th November, 1953, I held further discussions with the cotton industry in which I made it clear that the progress made fell short of the undertakings which had been given. It is now clear that the difficulties, technical and otherwise, of securing agreement on standards for cotton textiles had not been fully appreciated by the industry at the time they gave those undertakings.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that whatever difficulties there may be the consumer always suffers, and that under this Government the Minister is not prepared to do anything more about it?

There is no doubt that consumers in this country have a wide choice of admirably manufactured textiles over a very wide range.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the trade talks with Roumania will be reopened.

We have invited the Roumanian Government to send a delegation to London for trade and financial talks, and we await their reply.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to remember that since the trade talks with Roumania were broken off six months ago the Germans have made arrangements to increase their trade to something like three times ours with Roumania, and the French have also increased their trade arrangements for 1956, and that these might have been a welcome addition to our trade?

As I say, we have issued an invitation. I will not comment upon the possibilities in advance of our discussions.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not trade alone that holds up these negotiations, and that so far as it is possible for him to carry on these negotiations he will see that the trade part develops as fast as possible?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There are trade and payments questions involved.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement upon the discussions held recently between representatives of his Department and the Danish delegation concerning the future of Danish bacon imports into this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the negotiations with Denmark on the imports of Danish bacon into this country are to be resumed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with Denmark about bacon imports.

We are resuming talks with the Danish government today, and I am not at present in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 30th January.

Is the President aware of the concern felt among consumers at the proposed 10 per cent. tariff on the imports of Danish bacon and the consequent rise in the prices? Is he aware of the leakage which took place last week, which stated that compensation would also be offered to Denmark for the imposition of this tariff? Would he comment on it?

I naturally bear everyone's interests in mind, and particularly those of the consumers. The hon. Lady will not expect me to comment upon negotiations which are in progress at this moment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the object of this exercise is not to arrive at a price which would enable the Government to charge more to the consumer and thus make a profit at the expense of the British consumer for the benefit of the Ministry of Food?

While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty during the continuance of negotiations, may I ask whether he appreciates the very strong feeling there is against a food tariff, and that this matter has caused general disturbance in many quarters?

There are many arguments affecting tariffs, State trading in bacon and many other matters, but I do not think that it would be useful for me to comment on them while negotiations are continuing.

Is it not the case that there is nothing new at all about tariffs on food, that we already have a wide range of tariffs on horticultural products, and that some of those concerned with the horticultural industry hope that in due time the President may see his way to increase some of those tariffs?

Will the President explain to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government's declared motive in increasing horticultural tariffs was that horticultural goods could not be dealt with under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and, therefore, needed tariff protection; but that it is possible to act under the 1947 Measure in the case of other commodities?

I think this is getting a little wide of the negotiations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the short-time working in motor vehicle factories in the Midlands; and what action he is taking in the interests of our export trade.

Yes, Sir, but I do not consider that the present situation in the motor industry calls for intervention by the Government. My Department is, of course, deeply interested in the export performance of the industry and will continue to promote exports whenever possible.

Is the Minister aware that among the workers in these factories grave doubts exist owing to the failure of the home market on the one hand and increasing competition in foreign markets on the other?

I am aware of many of these problems, but I do not consider that a situation exists where Government intervention is called for. The motor industry has expanded largely and has considerable plans for further expansion in the future.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if costs continue to rise there will be considerably more short-time working?

Has the attention of the President of the Board of Trade been drawn to the proposed 10 per cent. increase in the North Atlantic freight charges, starting on 1st April, and will not that increase make the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) refers very much worse so far as the North American market is concerned?

My attention has been called to that, but it raises rather wider issues which go beyond motor cars.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will confer with trade associations with a view to their members freezing prices for a definite period in the same way as the cement industry has done.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 26th January.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the frustrations in our export trade, particularly in the crane-making trade, caused by the shortage of steel; and if he will take steps with a view to resolving those difficulties to enable foreign orders for export to be completed in full.

I am aware of the difficulties which manufacturing industries, including the crane-making trade, are experiencing in getting their full requirements of steel. The Board of Trade have invited the crane makers to discuss these difficulties with them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, as is evidenced by the letter from Messrs. Henderson of Aberdeen which I sent to him, that his present disastrous policy is depriving the country of foreign currency and creating unemployment, and will he take urgent steps to rectify this situation?

The crane makers, like other manufacturers, are experiencing certain shortages of steel associated with the very high levels of demand and investment at the present time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet made any decision with regard to the possible reference of the petroleum industry to the Monopolies Commission.

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 26th January.

It is easy to read that answer, but not to understand what it means. The President of the Board of Trade said his mind was made up, he has not made any reference, but he is considering the point. Does that mean that, after four years' consideration of the industry, he is not satisfied that there is a case for reference to the Commission, or that because of possible changes in the constitution of the Commission it is not expedient for the time being to refer this fresh industry to it?

I have made up my mind not to make a further statement on it at the moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in framing the Monopolies Bill, he will take into account the condemnation of individual resale price maintenance which is a feature of the last Report from the Monopolies Commission.

The views expressed in all the Reports of the Commission will be taken into account.

Surely the President cannot feel happy about producing a Bill which, as he indicated last July, will make the position in connection with the enforcement of individual resale price maintenance stronger than it is at present, in view of what he has said?

We can judge these matters only when we see the Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the annual rabbit crop in 1953 in terms of meat value, hatting and clothing value, and rabbit skin exports, respectively.

The only official figures of the value of the British rabbit are those relating to the export of undressed skins which, for 1953, were valued at £716,271. At the end of 1953 the trades concerned estimated that the annual value of the rabbit in terms of meat was about £7 million, and that the annual turnover of the fur felt hat industry, together with the value of exports of hatters' fur, was about £7½million. The use of British wild rabbit skins in clothing was stated to be small, amounting to no more than £50,000 to £70,000 a year on average.

In view of these serious figures, has the President of the Board of Trade had consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the overall effect of the extermination of wild rabbits? Is he proposing to take any action to deal with the problem, bearing in mind the very serious concern which is felt in the hatting and furrier industry in Lancashire, and the rabbit skin industry in other parts of the country such as Staffordshire?

I think there would be very little doubt, looked at purely from the economic point of view, that the benefits to agriculture from not having rabbits outweigh any advantage to the fur industry in having rabbits.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the enormous damage done by rabbits to agriculture, an even greater proportionate amount of damage is done to the nation's forestry, far outweighing the value of any of the loss—which we deplore—mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite?

Without taking sides, would the President consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture because, while this may be important from one point of view if one is a farmer, it is equally important from another point of view if one is an employer of labour in the industries to which the Question refers?

I am always in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Will the Minister tell the House whether he has had a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture and, if so, what the outcome of that discussion is?

The outcome is the Answer which I gave just now.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Danish Government regarding their proposal to impose a substantial import duty on Lancashire textiles.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 26th January.

The right hon. Gentleman then said:

"… there is no ground on which Her Majesty's Government could base representations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January. 1956; Vol. 548, c. 347.]

Surely there are always grounds if it is in the interests of one of our industries to continue to export to another country. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in Lancashire he has not exactly built up a reputation for helping the textile industry, and is not this one single thing he could do—to make representations to Denmark not to increase the tariff against textiles?

As I explained in a previous Answer, the Danes are only acting within a limit which they themselves negotiated.

Does not this indicate that if tariffs are put on Danish bacon there is retaliation and continuing rises in price?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the present tariff policy in relation to the import of goods from Denmark.

Our tariff policy in relation to imports from Denmark, as from other foreign countries, is to provide where necessary, a fair and reasonable margin of protection for our own producers and to maintain preferences for trade with the Commonwealth.

Is it not an entirely new part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to suggest that a 10 per cent. duty should now be put on bacon imports from Denmark? Is he not aware that if this results in an increase in the Danish tariff on textiles from Lancashire there will be very great indignation in Lancashire?

I think the hon. Member is trying to tempt me into making some comment on negotiations which are now proceeding.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him on behalf of the Government of Australia regarding the importation into the United Kingdom of subsidised foodstuffs and raw materials from other countries.

The Australian Government have on several occasions expressed concern to us on these matters. We have always kept in close touch with all Commonwealth countries on these issues and consider fully any representations they make to us.

Is the Minister aware that at the moment there is great discontent in Australia at Her Majesty's Government's trade policy? Is he further aware that at about this time last year the Prime Minister of Australia made representations, saying that if we did not import goods from Australia that country would have to make import cuts—cuts which were made subsequently—and that now the Australian Minister of Commerce has made a similar declaration? Does the President not think that he should make a statement to allay the fears in Australia and promote trade between the two countries?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very close consultations do take place now, as under the previous Government, before we make food arrangements under aid from the United States and other matters, and these consultations will continue.

Would the President consider issuing a public statement in answer to the Minister of Commerce in Australia?

The Australian Minister of Commerce made a statement concerning the import of certain apples, and a statement was issued upon that. It was not a very major matter, but I certainly will consider making any further statement necessary—or perhaps, more conveniently, communicate with the Australian Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the volume of pottery exports to Western Germany to the value of imports into Britain of German pottery.

All imports of domestic pottery from Western Germany to the United Kingdom are free of import restrictions. Western Germany retains a quota on the import of earthenware tableware from the United Kingdom; other pottery imports from the United Kingdom are free from restriction. We shall endeavour to secure better treatment for our exports of earthenware tableware in the negotiations which are due to be resumed early in March.

While thanking the President for the reassurance which he gave that there will be a review, is it not true that last year we were restricted to about £80,000 worth and that in the first six months of last year Western Germany exported to us £1 million of fancy pottery goods? Will he bear this in mind and realise that north Staffordshire cannot afford to subsidise Western Germany?

Without stating the figures—we do not generally state the figures of a quota—there is no question but that we were put in a disadvantageous position, and we will certainly press this matter to the best of our ability in the talks which are to be resumed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the proposed new trade agreement between Britain and Czechoslovakia.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the light of the present situation in the British motor car industry, he will review his ban on the Czechoslovak proposal for the purchase of 1,000 British passenger cars against imports of Czechoslovak goods required by British purchasers.

The Czechoslovak Government have accepted our invitation to send a trade and finance delegation to London, and I hope that they will shortly be able to begin talks. Meanwhile, I think it would be better not to comment on matters which may arise in those talks.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will appoint a committee to survey the future of British film production.

I have been giving consideration to the problem of future policy for the film industry and I have decided that at this stage the best course is for me to take steps to obtain the views of the various sections of the industry. This I propose to do and I shall, of course, seek the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council and of the National Film Finance Corporation.

While welcoming that statement, may I ask the President to bear in mind that the British film industry is doomed unless an adequate number of studios is kept in production? Will he consult, in addition to the bodies he has mentioned, the various associations of technicians and actors and the trade unions, who have a vital interest in the matter?

I should certainly expect to consult anyone who felt that they had some useful advice and help which they could give to me in matters of this sort.

Since the President made a major change in film policy last year without consulting anybody in the industry or the statutory Films Council, will he bear in mind that presumably we shall have a new films Bill by 1958, and will he not institute an inquiry fairly soon into all the questions involved? Will he not institute an inquiry to bring up to date the findings of the Plant-Palache Report on Monopoly in the Film Industry, in 1944, in view of the growing tendency of monopoly in the industry today?

A great number of inquiries have taken place into this rather complex but very interesting industry. I think that the first step I ought to take in considering the policy for the future of the industry is to consult the various interests in it and to see what their views are.

Will these discussions include discussion of the so-called Sunday charity levy, to which increasing objection is being taken on all sides?

I do not think that would be central to the whole problem of the future of the film industry, but I should certainly not exclude it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to get some idea of consumer reaction in this field?

If it be possible, although I think consumer reaction is one of the hardest things about which to get any idea. It can be judged only by the number of consumers who go to the films.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the reallocation of the factory on the Huyton Industrial Estate formerly occupied by Hosemaster Limited, who ceased production in August last.

Hosemaster Limited have not, after all, quitted this factory, as certain developments are in progress which may result in their resuming production.

Since the factory has remained empty and idle since last August, is it not about time the President took steps about allocating it for full production, as promised in the House last October? Is he aware that the developments to which he refers are believed by many people to be an attempt to buy up this factory or this company, with all its tax losses, for the purpose of setting them against Income Tax rather than for maintaining full production and full employment?

I think that perhaps the best thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to have a word with me about this. I shall be happy to listen to anything he has to say about it and I will give him all the information I can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the strategic stockpiles at present held by Her Majesty's Government.

The composition of the stockpiles of raw materials for which I am responsible will continue to be determined on the basis of strategic considerations.

Whatever that answer means, if anything, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a very clear statement in a national newspaper last Saturday which suggested that the Government had come to a major decision on the dissipation of these strategic stockpiles? In view of the fact that so many of the Government's intentions seem to be leaking to the Press long before we hear about them in the House, are we to take that statement as an accurate leakage or as pure invention?

I can accept no responsibility for what appears in the national Press.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers of civil servants employed in his Department in each of the years from 1946 onwards, and the number it is estimated will be employed at the end of this present year.

With permission, I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These show that the present staff of 7,314 represents a reduction of more than 50 per cent. on the 1946 figure. I hope that there will be some further reduction on this figure by the end of the year but I cannot give a precise estimate at present.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the cost in dollars of the synthetic rubber, the purchase of which has been authorised from the United States of America.

Imports have been authorised from North America, not specifically from the United States, at an estimated cost of 43 million dollars.

Does the President consider that this expenditure of dollars is justified, in view of the alternative of the purchase in sterling of natural rubber?

I think it is generally recognised that some proportion of synthetic rubber is necessary in a flourishing and competitive rubber manufacturing industry. I do not think that imports of this kind lead to a reduction in the total of natural rubber imported.

In view of the uncertainly which the right hon. Gentleman expresses, would he look further into the matter?

I have looked fairly closely into it and as a result have given the Answer which I have just given.

If the President's statement is correct, is it possible to obtain synthetic rubber other than from dollar sources?

This appears to be the best and the most economic source. Indeed, in many ways it is the only source for some types of this rubber.

Is the President aware that preparations are already being made to manufacture synthetic rubber in this country, and that within a reasonable time we shall be free from having to buy dollar imports of this raw material?

I am aware of the suggestions for its manufacture in this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a current list of all articles which may not be exported from this country to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and a similar list of the articles which may not be exported to China from this country.

The list of goods embargoed for the Soviet countries of Eastern Europe was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 16th October, 1954, and certain subsequent amendments were published on 20th August. 1955. The classes of goods embargoed for China in June, 1951, were published in the Board of Trade Journal of 23rd June of that year. Platform and fork-lift trucks were added in April, 1953. and ordinary passenger cars and sodium peroxide were removed from the list in October, 1953.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing these in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that an up-to-date statement is easily accessible to us? Is there evidence that our action is preventing either of these countries from obtaining these supplies, or are we merely damaging our own trade? If the China list is larger than the Soviet list, which I understand to be the case, is it not unwise for us to channel our trade with China through the Soviet Union?

The questions which the hon. Gentleman now asks raise much wider issues of the effect and purpose of strategic controls in general. His Question asks what the lists are. I will certainly give consideration to his request and see whether I can publish the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if it is not too bulky.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that United States dairy products are being imported into the United Kingdom at prices below those ruling in the world markets and at the expense of imports of Commonwealth dairy products; and what action he is taking.

No, Sir, I am not aware of this. With the exception of cheese no imports of dairy products from the U.S.A. are being authorised at present. Imports of cheese are limited to an annual quota of £1·5 million c.i.f. for North America as a whole. Import licences issued against the quota are not subject to restrictions as to price.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask for an assurance that there is no foundation for the report that Sir Leslie Munro, Her Majesty's New Zealand Ambassador in Washington, made representations to the American Government about the fact that 10,000 tons of United States cheese was being imported into the United Kingdom?

Some United States and Canadian cheese is being imported, but it is in very small quantities compared with our total import arrangements and is under a very strict quota arrangement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report on Development Areas by the Select Committee on Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the Committee's recommendations.

The Report is under consideration, and the Board will be commenting on it in due course.

Does the President realise that this Report contains a number of inaccurate and misleading statements and that in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends he would be well advised to disregard the majority of its recommendations?

I think I would be prudent to reserve any comments I have to make on the Report to a later stage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering this Report that the Select Committee on Estimates apparently came to its conclusions and its recommendations—at any rate in regard to the North-East Lancashire Development Area—on totally misconceived foundations and appeared to think that the case for that area rested only on the degree of unemployment in the area, whereas it really rests upon the overwhelming need for diversification of industry?

The hon. Member is right in saying that there are other factors than the level of employment at a particular moment which ought to be taken into account.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that all well-informed opinion in the North-East Development Area agrees that there is no case yet for de-scheduling any part of it?

think the questions show that this is a matter upon which varying views can be held. We had better reserve comment until we have all had an opportunity of studying the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates.

In considering the Report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that certainly among those with any knowledge of the Development Areas there is no variation of opinion on the Report at all, and that while no one impugns the hard work done by the members of that Committee, their conscientiousness and sincerity, nevertheless it is a fact that hardly any of them—if any—represent Development Areas or have had any practical experience of dealing with those areas? In considering the evidence supplied to his Department, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the conclusions bear no regard at all to the evidence submitted?

I am fully aware of the contribution which has been made to this big problem of diversification, not only by this Government but by preceding Governments, and I am approaching this matter with that thought well in mind.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you allow me, as Chairman of this Committee which has made the Report, merely to correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in the statement he has just made, in all fairness to the Select Committee on Estimates? I am not dealing with the merits of the matter, but, if I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he said that the members of that Committee had had no experience of work in the Development Areas, which is not correct. That is all I wish to say.

I do not think it is a point of order, but quite obviously we cannot discuss a big and important Report of this character at Question Time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is expected that the Mullard factory in the North-East Lancashire Development Area will be in full production; and how many persons of both sexes it is hoped will then be found employment.

It is expected that this factory will be in full production by the end of the year and will then employ upwards of 1,000 people, mainly men.

Is the Minister aware that in the last two years the number of people in the cotton weaving industry in this area has dropped by 7,000, that the migration from the area is about 1,000 per year, and that this one effort is not really sufficient to cope with those appalling circumstances?

I am aware of the special problems of this area, which the hon. Member has very rightly and properly drawn to my attention on a number of occasions. At the same time, I would say that I think the erection and use of this great new factory will at least make an important contribution to the problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) under what circumstances the face value of a post-war credit certificate is reduced when the holder claims payment;

(2) whether his estimate of the amount required for payment of all post-war credit certificates is based upon the amounts stated on those certificates or upon the amounts noted by the Inland Revenue Department as payable upon those certificates;

(3) what is his estimate of the difference in amount between the amounts stated on outstanding post-war credit certificates and the amounts which will be payable when payment of such certificates falls due.

The post-war credit payable may be less than the face value of the certificate mainly because the full tax due for the relevant year was not actually paid. The amount shown on the certificates was based on the tax payable, but in some cases the actual tax paid may have been less, and this would affect the credit due. Attention is drawn to this by a note on the post-war credit certificates. The face value of the postwar credits outstanding is estimated to be £526 million. The shortfalls in actual payments of tax are likely to reduce this figure by less than 1 per cent.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware of cases in which just the opposite happens, where more tax has been paid than was due and where, after a wartime payment of tax, there was a reassessment at a lower figure, the post-war credit certificate is written down in the books of the Treasury and the taxpayer is refused a return of the overpayment of tax because more than six years have elapsed? Is he aware that it is rather a shock to the taxpayer, who has kept his post-war credit certificate safely and brings it out when he reaches the appropriate age, to be told that it does not represent the value which is stated on the face of it?

If my hon. Friend will send me the case he has in mind, I will gladly look into it. What we cannot do is to repay tax which has never been paid. What we seek to do is to repay tax which has been paid.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the difficult situation in which he is placing many widows and other dependants who succeed to the credit on survival? The widows are in no position after 15 or 16 years to check up the tax position of their late husbands because no documentary evidence is available to them except in the Treasury.

I am very sorry if anyone is disappointed. Should anyone think that he or she may be liable to that kind of occurrence, he or she can send in the certificates at any time.

It is not a question of disappointment but of a grave injustice to people in the position mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) who, many years afterwards are informed that they will not get the face value of the certificate. It may be ten, twenty or thirty years afterwards; it is not a question of disappointment but of grave injustice which ought to be corrected.

Every post-war credit bears a note which says that the amount due may not be identical with the amount on the credit; it may be less or may be more.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the repayment of post-war credits to all those who produce a medical certificate stating that they suffer from a chronic and incurable disease.

I regret that this suggestion cannot be accepted. The difficulties of paying post-war credits earlier on special hardship grounds have often been explained to the House.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sum involved here would be small and that the hardship is often very great? Will he please remember that the public accepts that the Treasury has a brain but really feels that it has no heart at all?

I think that have a heart, but the difficulty here is to draw a proper dividing line. If one were to allow payment to the people in question one might still find oneself excluding people whose financial needs might be even greater, such as widows who had nothing at all.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of repaying post-war credits to all applicants who are at present in receipt of National Assistance.

I regret this information is not available, nor could it readily be obtained.

Could the right hon. Gentleman not find information quite easily through the National Assistance Board, which deals with its applicants personally? Would not that information help him in solving the problem of how to pay post-war credits to those who are suffering great hardship?

I think that it would be found that two-thirds of those who are receiving National Assistance are over what I might call the post-war credit age, but there will remain always the difficulty of distinguishing between those in permament need and those who go to the National Assistance Board because of purely temporary need.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money may be sent as a gift in any one year by a relative in the United Kingdom to a relative in Canada.

Cash gifts are only allowed in cases of hardship, the amount depending on the circumstances of each case.

Would the Economic Secretary not agree that it would be of great advantage if a small sum were allowed—say £10—for relatives to send to people who have emigrated to Canada? Is not his answer a grave commentary on the party which calls itself the Empire party?

I can say to the hon. Member that the ban on cash gifts is regularly reviewed when we examine our exchange control restrictions, and some relaxation is high on the list of priorities when circumstances permit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove, by Treasury order, the Purchase Tax on domestic heat pumps.

No, Sir. These appliances serve the same purpose as electrical heaters and refrigerators and, in fairness, must bear the same tax.

Is not the Financial Secretary aware that this appliance, when used in place of an ordinary domestic boiler, saves at least I ton to 1½tons of coal in a house in a year and that one of the two firms manufacturing them has had to close down now because of the high level of Purchase Tax, with the result that we are losing valuable export orders for this type of appliance?

I will take note of what the hon. Member has said, but on the situation as known to me it would be unfair to the manufacturers of ordinary heaters and refrigerators if these inventions were singled out for tax exemption.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his Department has deliberately excluded oil burners which produce heat for domestic purposes from Purchase Tax? Will he tell the House the difference, technically, between an oil burner which is not subject to Purchase Tax and a heat pump which is subject to the tax?

I think that is a rather different question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider, when preparing his Budget, permitting limbless ex-Service men aged 55 years and over, who are in receipt of a disability pension of 50 per cent. upwards and who do not qualify for free motor cars, to buy motor cars free of Purchase Tax to enable them to continue going to and from their employment, subject to safeguard as to the sale and disposal of such cars if their owners have no further use for them.

My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind, but there are great difficulties in the way of any such proposal.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that men whose lower limbs have been amputated find the manipulation of artificial limbs more irritating as they get older? Is he aware that the average age of victims of the 1914–18 War will be 65 when the Budget is introduced?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says but, as his Question recognises, there are difficulties in preventing abuse. If one grants one claim of this kind it opens up the question whether other similar claims in different fields might have to be granted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he now intends to take to secure stability in the purchasing price of the £ sterling.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 24th January.

Nothing was said then about the means that the Government intend to adopt. In view of what has appeared in certain sections of the Press, may we have an assurance that the Government will not take any steps which would lead to unemployment?

It is always a pleasure to debate economic affairs with the hon. Member, but Question Time is not the best occasion.

If the Government really wish to check the rise in the cost of living, is there not one simple and obvious thing they can do; that is, to withdraw the Housing Subsidies Bill?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of £I now in purchasing power as compared with 20s. purchasing power in May, 1955.

Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in May, 1955, the corresponding figure for December, 1955, is 19s.

This estimate is based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices.

Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether that is in accordance with the Election pledges given by his party in May, 1955?

There is no subject to which the Government attach more importance at the present time than the restraining of inflation, and it is through cutting down the excessive pressure of total demand, and only by that means, that prices can become steady.

Under the new Chancellor, is it the cost of living or the standard of living which is to be doubled in twenty-five years?

I entirely share the view, which I once saw in the hon. Member's Election address, that it is the standard of living which matters most at all times for all sections of the community.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise a basic travel allowance of £50 for British subjects visiting the United States of America.

My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to authorise a travel allowance for the dollar area.

I recognise the great difficulties involved in any proposal which would increase dollar expenditure, but is my hon. Friend aware that such a step would do much to cement our friendship with the United States? Can we have his assurance that it will be done at the earliest possible moment?

I can only say that this really is not the time to add to our expenditure in foreign currencies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of currency taken by British subjects to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during 1955, for private, business and official visits, respectively.

The total amount of currency taken by United Kingdom residents to the U.S.S.R. during 1955 for business visits is estimated to be approximately £63,000, for official visits £1,000, and for private travel for special reasons £3,000. No figures are available for the currency taken by United Kingdom tourists.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated deficit in current transactions between the United Kingdom and the dollar area for the year ending 31st December, 1955, excluding and including United States aid.

I regret that the figures are not yet available. They will be published in about two months' time in the next balance of payments White Paper.

Is the hon. Gentleman's Department really so incompetent that it cannot produce these figures within one month of the end of the year? Can the Economic Secretary not now say whether the deficit, excluding American aid, is likely to exceed about £250 million?

The hon. Member ought to realise that it would be quite impossible for final figures for the current balance with the dollar area in the second half of 1955 yet to have been prepared.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to close the dollar gap.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he hopes to announce new measures for strengthening the United Kingdom balance of payments.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 24th January, 1956.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the dollar gap, whatever it is, is a frightening one and is widening, and that urgent steps are required to deal with it? When will his Department get away from the laissez fairenotions of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and get down to the necessity of restrictive controls on inessential dollar imports?

This is by no means the first time that the hon. Member has asked me that question. I hope I may have a chance of debating it with him on some future occasion.

If the hon. Gentleman thought he was answering my Question, may I ask him this? Does he realise that all this continued uncertainty is damaging to sterling; and as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has now been in office for about six weeks, can the hon. Gentleman say how soon he will make up his mind about something?

I have nothing to add to what I previously said, but I think that my right hon. Friend's clear statement about the Government's firm intention to maintain the existing parity of the £has done nothing but good towards confidence in sterling.

What action is to be taken to correct the deficit in the balance of payments. That is what I asked.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his policy towards dividend limitation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of his policy in respect of the limitation of wages and dividends.

My right hon. Friend does not favour the statutory limitation of dividends since it is impracticable to lay down in a Statute standards which would equitably treat all the widely varying circumstances and needs of the companies concerned. But my right hon. Friend proposes to continue the policy of his predecessor in taking every opportunity to impress on all the partners in industry the urgent need for moderation in their claims.

Why can Ministers be so specific in urging wage limitations upon employees but always come with this kind of mumbo-jumbo when asked a specific question as to whether they are in favour of dividend restraint? Is the Economic Secretary aware that this sort of thing will never get any kind of support from people who genuinely are concerned about the economic position of the country but who are fed up with the bias shown by the Government in these matters?

My Answer was reasonably specific both on the point of view of the statutory limitation of dividends and also on the need for restraint.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of approaching this subject on the broadest possible front, so that if there is any question of the limitation of dividends, it shall extend also, preferably by agreement, to the limitation of wages and other inflationary tendencies?

What is the benefit of the limitation of dividends if prices can still be raised? Would the Economic Secretary consider the principle of operating a maximum price limit so long as the average earnings of any industry, or its total profits before taxation, were not below the average of 1953, 1954 and 1955? Would he then consider some special concession in taxation to any industry which reduced its prices?

I know the hon. Member's sincerity in these matters but they are issues which are much too wide to discuss now.

In view of the complete failure of the policy of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, is it really beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman and of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to think of something new in this direction? May I ask him carefully to avoid any measures on a broad front?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that neither dividends nor Stock Exchange prices ever rose faster than during the three months after the April Budget of 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the growing fears that a continuation of the credit squeeze may precipitate an industrial slump; and what action he proposes to take to restore confidence to industry.

As my right hon. Friend said, on 24th January, in reply to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), we shall continue to press forward with the policy of restraining inflation. The restriction of credit is an essential part of that policy and must therefore continue.

How do we judge of the success of this policy? Is it to be the number of bankruptcies among small firms or the number of employees who are on short time or unemployed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade unions are getting very apprehensive indeed of the results of this policy?

The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware that it is sheer nonsense for anyone to suggest that we are now on the edge of an industrial slump. The problem is still that of restraining inflation, as he himself will be well aware.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that the credit squeeze has worked in a way which leaves the big industrial giants almost untouched in their economic policies and is having the gravest effect on a lot of small men and businesses throughout the country? Since the hon. Gentleman says that the problem facing us is still one of inflation, will he now recognise, as is widely accepted, that the credit squeeze is not solving the problem? Will he confirm or deny that the Government have now decided to introduce a measure of physical control?

In my Answer, I was careful to say that the restriction of credit is an essential part of the policy of restraining inflation. I do not unsay one word of what I said last year in defence of the autumn Budget.

In view of all the uncertainty on this question and its vital importance, will not the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him about physical controls? If the credit squeeze is part of the policy, will he say whether physical controls—for instance, on building licensing—are also part of the Government's policy?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, that question is quite different from the one on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the totals of fixed capital formation in manufacturing industry in 1951 and in 1954; and what percentage of the national income these figures represent.

As shown in the National Income Blue Book, 1955, Table 48, fixed capital formation in manufacturing industry was £532 million in 1951 and £584 million in 1954. These figures represent, respectively, 4·2 and 3·7 per cent. of the gross national product.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, considering that the base of industry has been considerably enlarged since 1951, it is most disappointing to get figures of that nature as representing the kind of investment in manufacturing industry? How does he think that industry can modernise itself and compete in the present-day world if that kind of result is to be obtained?

I entirely share the hon. Member's concern for a high level of investment in industry. It has been precisely for that reason that the Government have sought to restrain inflation to a considerable extent by restraining consumer demand rather than investment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to aid the movement for stabilising prices, he will ask the British Petroleum Company to give an undertaking not to increase the price of petrol during the next twelve months.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister bear in mind that in the case of this Government-owned company the Government have an opportunity of showing whether there is any sincerity in then-appeal for moderation in profits and dividends? Why are the Government so chary of setting an example in the case of an undertaking which is controlled by the Government and which has been showing handsome profits?