asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, for the last five years, the figures of defence expenditure expressed as a percentage of Government expenditure and of national income, respectively; and his estimate of the figures for the current year.

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

While thanking the Financial Secretary for supplying those figures, may I ask him whether they do not reveal the principal source of inflation in our economy in the last few years? Also, has he had an opportunity of comparing the figures with those of other European Powers, and if so, what conclusions has he arrived at?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir." With regard to the second part, I have not myself made a detailed comparison, but I will endeavour to do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the free policy value as shown on industrial life assurance policies is open to misconstruction; and whether he will take steps to ensure that it appears on the face of such policies that this value in no way represents a surrender value at any particular date, but only a sum which, under certain circumstances, is payable at death in lieu of the value of the policy.

No, Sir. I have no reason to think that such misunderstanding is at all common.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that point, because I can assure him that there are cases where the difference between the two values is very considerable, and it produces hardship when these misunderstandings occur and people think that they will be able to rely on a very much higher value than in fact they will get? The value shown on the face of many policies which I could produce to my right hon. Friend is misleading.

The significant thing is that we have had very few complaints coming to us about this matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend has information of cases where difficulty has arisen, I should be very grateful if he would send it to me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the regulating factor by which he determines the volume of money available in circulation as purchasing power.

There is no single regulating factor: but Bank Rate and Exchequer financing are important elements.

Will my right hon. Friend consider initiating the appropriate research with a view to the possibility of creating a commodity standard to operate on the same lines as the now outdated gold standard, so that the amount of money in circulation remains in balance with the amount of goods produced?

No, Sir, I do not think that I can go quite so far as that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in future, when large sums of money are loaned by Her Majesty's Government, or its agencies, to Commonwealth projects, conditions will be made to ensure that contracts are awarded to British or Commonwealth firms, bearing in mind the grip of the credit squeeze on British enterprise and work in progress.

It would not be in our wider interests to lay down a condition that all our loans should be available only for United Kingdom goods and services. Specific decisions can be taken only on individual cases, in the light of what is desirable and practicable.

If my right hon. Friend will take the individual case of the Kariba project, surely he will agree that there are major political considerations which have to be borne in mind? Can he give us an assurance that there will not be a repetition of the bad organisation which led to that fiasco?

I must deny that there has been any bad organisation. In the Kariba case it would not have been possible to find the funds needed in the United Kingdom as well as finding the finance for other development in the Federation. It was necessary to interest the International Bank, and that Bank lays down the condition that contracts covered by its financing must be open to international tender.

If that condition cannot be applied to loans, could it at least be applied to gifts, such as the pending gift to Egypt?

That is a different question.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply to this Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to extend the operation of Section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to Northern Ireland, so that the owner of property which has been affected by war damage may be entitled to a cost of works payment under the war damage scheme instead of a converted value payment, as at present, when the property is compulsorily acquired.

Her Majesty's Government are in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland about this, and we are awaiting their reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety in Northern Ireland on the part of owners of war-damaged property which is likely to be requisitioned in this way, and will he do his best to expedite the matter so as to bring the law in Northern Ireland on the subject of war damage into line with that in this country?

My hon. Friend has been good enough to have a talk with me about this, and, if I may put it this way, the ball is at the moment in the Northern Ireland Government's court.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business organisations have made representations to him about the question of removing Purchase Tax from wool cloth.

Representations on this subject have been made to my right hon. Friend by the Wool Textile Delegation and the Bradford and Huddersfield Chambers of Commerce. There have been no complaints from individual traders.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has ignored the appeal of these responsible bodies? Is he aware that, as there is no Purchase Tax on textiles made of cotton or synthetic fibres, the West Riding of Yorkshire greatly resents the imposition of Purchase Tax on wool cloth?

I was about to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his supplementary question in reply to the next Question on the Order Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent relationship between the Wool Textile Delegation and the Government has been built over a great number of years to the enormous advantage of successive Governments, irrespective of party? Is he further aware that the excellent arrangements, which have been helpful to both sides, are for the first time seriously impaired because of the Government's stubborn attitude in this matter?

I am very appreciative indeed of the past relationship. I have every hope that it will continue, because I think that a great many people realise and understand the reasoning behind the Government's policy in this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long he proposes to retain the Purchase Tax on wool cloth; and what conditions will be required to be satisfied before he will be able to remove it.

As has been explained to the hon. Member before, the problem of the small tailor makes it necessary to retain this tax as a counterpart to the tax on clothing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arguments which he puts forward for the retention of Purchase Tax on wool cloth are weak and will not stand close examination? Will he look at this question again, and take useful action at once?

The difficulty is that the only way effectively to collect tax on the suits which the small tailors make is by charging the tax on the cloth which they buy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total annual Exchequer revenue comes from the Purchase Tax on wool cloth.

About 0·04 per cent.

Will not the Treasury forgo this tiny percentage of revenue in order to remove an irksome injustice? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this imposition of Purchase Tax is looked upon as being unjust, and that it is thoroughly annoying and an insult to an old and great industry?

There is a real difficulty here. To do what the hon. Member suggests would be to give the small unregistered tailors a 5 per cent. price advantage over the registered tailors who are offering exactly the same article in direct competition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that by virtue of the fact that the headquarters of the Customs and Excise officers stationed at London Airport has been moved from Adelaide House to the airport, these officers are held not to be qualified for the London scale of pay; and if, in view of the fact that these officers still live in the same houses and incur the same expenses irrespective of where the headquarters are situated, he will have this matter re-examined.

The setting up of the new Customs headquarters at London Airport in 1951 had no effect on the salaries of the Customs and Excise officers then permanently stationed there. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

While it is true that it had no effect at the time, it had an effect six months afterwards, when the differential pay agreement came into effect. In view of the fact that the change of headquarters means a salary cut to these officers, will the Financial Secretary look into the matter again and either abolish the controversial differentiation or put the headquarters back into London?

It was not six months but five months afterwards that there was a reclassification, which did not lower the rate of pay but raised it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was obtained in the fiscal year 1955–56 from the import into the United Kingdom of rayon and rayon goods from India and Hong Kong, respectively.

I regret that this information is not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates would be obtained from imposing an import duty upon cotton and cotton goods, at the same rate as that imposed on rayon and rayon goods, coming from India and Hong Kong, respectively.

The revenue yield would depend upon the extent to which the flow of trade was affected, and so any estimate would necessarily be conjectural. On the basis of the 1955 trade figures, the yield would have been some £4 million.

Although my right hon. Friend was unable to give any figures of the actual yield on rayon and rayon goods, surely he could give an indication whether it was greater or less than the estimated figure for cotton and cotton goods.

That was not exactly what my hon. Friend asked me. The difficulty arises from the fact that we try not to employ too many people or to keep too many records, and the fact is that it is not essential to keep these detailed records of revenue from different sources for revenue purposes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that before the next Budget he will consider special taxation reliefs for elderly people living on small fixed incomes.

The burden of taxation on all sections of the community, including the elderly people whose cause my hon. Friend pleads, is constantly in my right hon. Friend's mind.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Chancellor whether it might come out of his mind on to paper? Would he bear in mind that both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have stated that the people living on small fixed incomes are worse off than anybody else? In view of the fact that he has given some very helpful advice to some others about what will happen in the next Budget, may I ask whether he wants all these people to die before he is ready to introduce an amelioration of their position?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider all this. What I cannot do, before the present Finance Bill is on the Statute Book, is to anticipate what will go into the next one.

Have the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor considered the extension of the housekeeper allowance to elderly spinstersh—

Not me.

—who are often just as greatly in need of this tax allowance as elderly men?

All these matters have been open to debate for a great many days on the Finance Bill. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has resisted discussing any of them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount of United States securities has been sold by the Government lately.

Since my right hon. Friend's statement on 21st February last, £6·5 million worth.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the Government's policy about these securities? Are they all to be sold gradually, when the market is favourable, or is it intended to retain some of them indefinitely?

There has been no change whatever in policy since the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1951, but we have to manage this portfolio of investments, and from time to time it is desirable to sell some.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the public disquiet about expenses incurred by company directors, if he will move to set up a Select Committee to consider and report on this question before the next Budget.

No, Sir. This matter has only recently been fully reviewed by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income.

Does the Minister never read the papers? Is he aware that nearly every intelligent reader of the newspapers is asking how Sir Bernard Docker gets away with this idea that these expenses constitute legitimate expenses? Does the Minister connive at the idea that super-luxury cars sent by special aeroplane to the Riviera constitute a legitimate business expense?

I thought the hon. Member would know that expense allowances and benefits in kind to a director or highly-paid employee are not free of tax unless they are proved to have been necessary. I have a feeling that the hon. Member is trying to tempt me to do what I am not allowed to do—make reference to the affairs of an individual taxpayer.

Do not the practices now revealed as going on within the B.S.A. Company amount to a fraud on shareholders, workers and honest taxpayers? Is it not the duty of the Government to protect the honest taxpayer?

My responsibility is for the enforcement of the tax law. That, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, we are enforcing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent prospective entrants into the Civil Service are required to give information about insanity among members of their family.

All successful candidates in open competitions for establishment are asked, among many other questions relating to their health, whether any of their near relations have had pulmonary tuberculosis, asthma, fits, epilepsy or mental disorder. The same questions are asked of candidates whose establishment is dependent upon a period of temporary service, if their health record during such service has not been satisfactory and medical inquiries are therefore warranted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is this kind of question, asked by Government Departments and other prospective employers, which does as much as anything to perpetuate in the public mind the stigma connected with mental illness? Will he give a lead on behalf of Government Departments to eliminate this question in the future?

I think that the hon. Member is going a little too far. It is not unreasonable to ask questions of this kind of a candidate for establishment, because the Civil Service Commissioners must be able to assess the likelihood of a man being able to give regular and effective service.

May I ask whether similar questions are addressed to prospective members of the Government?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the Fisher Fleet at King's Lynn; what steps have been taken to secure improved facilities for the fishermen of the port; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The difficulty is to establish who is the responsible authority for the Fisher Fleet where no charge is made for accommodation. My officials are at present discussing the position with the local interests.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which sounds very encouraging, may I ask him if he is aware that up to now no local body has accepted responsibility for the facilities for the fishermen of the port, and that the men feel that they need someone to take care of them in future?

Yes, I am fully aware of the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is in a position to report progress on the quality milk payment scheme of February, 1956.

I understand that the Milk Marketing Board, which is responsible for payments to producers, has set up a sub-committee to consider the problem, but that the sub-committee has not yet reported.

In view of the feeling often expressed by my right hon. Friend, that he deplores the deterioration in the national milk supply, will he not do his best to expedite the decision in this matter?

I do not think that I ever have deplored the deterioration in the milk supply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Report of the Committee on National Stud Policy and Methods of Operation.

Yes, Sir. I am in general agreement with the objectives which the Committee's recommendations are designed to achieve. The permanent implementation however of the policy of standing at the Stud a stallion of the very highest class must depend on future financial circumstances. In the shorter term, however, I am enabled to put this policy into effect thanks to Mr. Clark's generous gift to the National Stud of the stallion, Never Say Die. I am in broad agreement with the Committee's recommendations on mares, but as the Stud must continue to be self-supporting, it will continue to breed some yearlings for sale as an additional source of revenue. As recommended by the Committee, I propose to appoint a standing committee to advise on the acquisition and disposal of bloodstock.

May I ask the Minister whether, in view of this exceedingly generous gift from an American, any British breeder has felt like being equally generous and making a present of a stallion to the National Stud?

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's Question because I am glad to say that Sir Victor Sassoon has offered to the National Stud his colt, Elopement. I have accepted the offer with great gratitude, and I am hoping that Elopement will stand at the stud from the 1957 season onwards.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the damage caused to growing tomatoes in the Lea Valley by hormone spraying in neighbouring fields; and what action he proposes to take to prevent its recurrence.

I am aware that there have been several cases of damage to tomato crops by spray drift in the Lea Valley. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on 18th June, the need for care in spraying is being emphasised by my advisory officers. I will consider in consultation with the organisations interested what further publicity might be undertaken for the future.

I thank the Minister for his promise to consider this matter, but does he realise that this practice involves some of the tomato growers in a great financial loss, which some of the smaller ones can ill afford, and that the trouble might be prevented by a scheme of notification to neighbours before spraying commences?

I realise the importance of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. Very heavy damage can result, and I will bear in mind the suggestion which he has made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of meat intended for human consumption is not subject to inspection in England and Wales at the present time.

All meat intended for sale for human consumption is liable to inspection. Meat from animals killed by farmers and domestic pig keepers for their own family use is not, but this is a very small proportion of the total.

Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the meat is inspected by veterinary surgeons fully qualified for the job?

No, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend that information; nor can I tell him what proportion is, in fact, inspected.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the National Food Survey, published in 1954, reveals that in families of three children the average diet falls below the nutritional standards of the British Medical Association; and what steps he has taken to remedy this situation.

I am aware that the average diet in families of three children fell somewhat below the recommendations of the British Medical Association in respect of two nutrients, protein and calcium, though it was actually higher in respect of six other main nutrients. These recommendations do not purport to be precise assessments of human requirements. But with this qualification in mind, the Survey findings are kept under constant review, and they were one of the factors taken into account when the Government decided to increase the family allowance for the third child. Large families are also assisted by the welfare and school milk schemes, and can obtain school meals free in cases of need.

Is the Minister aware that the 1954 Report deals only with 1952; that further reports are not available, but that the indications are that in protein and calcium content the diet is far below that fixed by the B.M.A., and that the six items that the right hon. Gentleman indicated as being above are above only in carbohydrate, which has a very low food value?

The Report for 1954 is at present in the hands of the printer and, I hope, will be out shortly. As regards the six main nutrients which these families received in excess of the minimum recommended, they cover iron, vitamin A, vitamin B₁, riboflavin, nicotinic acid and vitamin C.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the cash value of the milk subsidy for families of four or more children, including welfare and school milk.

About 8s. a week.

In the 1954 Food Survey the figure was 14s. 9d. per week; it is now 8s. per week—and the 1954 Report is not the latest. How far below 8s. will the figure fall, and does the Minister think that in view of those figures there is justification for increasing the school meal charges?

The figure has dropped, but I have indicated ways in which families with a substantial number of children receive special help. The general reductions in subsidies, which account, in the main, for the drop in the figure to which the hon. Lady referred, were made because the Government felt that it was impossible to justify subsidies of this kind for everyone in the country, regardless of their circumstances.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that wood-pigeons breed most successfully during the months of August and September; and, in view of the growing menace of this pest, if his Department will campaign during these months for the destruction of their nests and eggs.

A survey made in Cambridgeshire last year indicated that August and September were the most successful breeding months for the wood-pigeon. I am anxious that every effective step shall be taken to deal with this menace. Field experiments are now being carried out to determine whether the destruction of nests and eggs can be recommended as a practicable and economical method of control.

Will my right hon. Friend please give this information as much publicity as possible, particularly in the eastern counties, where the wood-pigeon is becoming a very serious pest, not only to peas and those crops, but also to the winter crops?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the seriousness of the menace of the wood-pigeon in the eastern counties, and also in several other parts of the United Kingdom.

While all this may be very necessary in the interests of agriculture, and one does not dispute that, will the Minister bear in mind that first it was the destruction of rabbits and now it is that of wood-pigeons, and that little by little our countryside is being denuded of life?

I know that one has to keep a sense of balance in these matters, but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that both the rabbit and the pigeon are very serious menaces to food production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he wrote an official letter to the National Farmers' Union, informing it that any wage increases agreed to at the present meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board would not necessarily cause him to give full recoupment in a special Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official communication he has made to the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers regarding the claim before the Central Agricultural Wages Board for a substantial increase of wages for agricultural workers in England and Wales.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he considered it necessary to warn the National Farmers' Union in a letter that a severe view would be taken of any application for a special price review, should one be made, in the event of the farm workers' application for a wage increase being granted; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the terms of the letter he recently addressed to the President of the National Farmers' Union about the farm workers' claim for a wage increase now before the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make clear that he has no intention to prejudice agreement by the Board on an award which would be in keeping with the general requirements of restraint on actual wages while recognising the low level of current minimum rates in agriculture.

I gave notice to the National Farmers' Union last February that the Government intended to examine the special Review procedures in order that they might be adapted to present conditions. When it was decided subsequently to examine also the wider question of more effective long-term assurances to the industry, I hoped that the two might be considered together as they were somewhat related. In view, however, of the claim now before the Agricultural Wages Board, it is possible that a request for a special Review might arise before any conclusion has been reached on the wider issues. That being so, it was incumbent upon us to leave the National Farmers' Union in no doubt about the Government's attitude, should a request for a further special Review be made before these general discussions had been completed.

Is the Minister aware that his reply does not in any way allay our fear that the principle of Ministerial impartiality in wages disputes is being departed from, and that we believe that the agricultural workers, in their efforts to improve their miserably low wage of 135s. a week, have not only the National Farmers' Union to deal with but also the Minister and his Government? Further, in view of the fact that the National Farmers' Union representatives feel that in his letter they have a trump card with which to persuade the Agricultural Wages Board not to grant an increase, will the Minister make it perfectly clear that he deprecates his letter being used in that manner?

There is really no secrecy about this matter at all. It is a matter in which public finances may be involved. I am sure that I was right to write these letters to the National Farmers' Union. If I had not done so, and if, following a wage advance, a request for a special Review had been made and the Government had taken a more severe attitude than previously, the National Farmers' Union, in the absence of a letter from me, might well have complained that I ought to have given them information in advance.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from this side of the House that we welcome what he has said just now, making clear that his letter does not in any way prejudice the impartial consideration of the claim made by the farm workers for an increase in their minimum wages at the present rate of £6 15s. a week? Will my right hon. Friend also take it from this side of the House that it is timely that he should let all those engaged in these deliberations, including the National Farmers' Union, know the current relevant factors, including the need for restraint in wages and prices?

How could the right hon. Gentleman tell the National Farmers' Union in his letter to it that he would take a severe view if a substantial increase was given, when in fact the Act of 1947 declares—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, hon. Members will find when they read the letter in HANSARD tomorrow morning that that was said. Despite the apologetic question that has just been asked by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), it is quite impossible for the Minister of Agriculture to make clear that he has no intention of prejudicing an agreement when, in fact, he tells eight members of the National Farmers' Union who are also members of the national Wages Board that if they should by any chance make any concession he will take a very severe view. The question I want to put is: is that not interfering with an independent national Wages Board?

There is no interference whatever with an independent national Wages Board. This is a matter between the Government and the National Farmers' Union and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, whenever an application for a special Review is made, it is the responsibility of the Government to decide whether or not they will agree to that special Review. All I have written to say now is that—following my letter of last February to the National Farmers' Union, when I warned it that we should be examining the basis and procedure of the special Review—if an application for a special Review was made before our consultations had been completed, the Government would have to adopt a severe attitude to the request; and further, that if a special Review was made by the Government it would not necessarily follow that full recoupment would be given.

Is it not a fact that the Minister had not received a request for a special Review and that, therefore, the matter had not arisen? Is it not a fact also that the Agricultural Wages Board should be, as it always has been, entirely independent when dealing with all applications? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's letter to one side of that Board an interference? If the Minister has an agricultural wages policy, why did he not reveal it to both sides, and in particular to the Chairman of the Board?

It is in no way an interference. It is simply a warning to the N.F.U. of the attitude that the Government may have to adopt in their financial transactions with the N.F.U. The Wages Board itself now has complete discretion to decide every application on its merits.

rose—

I think that this subject has been debated enough.

Is this not the first case since the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board where a Minister of Agriculture, during the course of an application for an increase, has interfered with either the agricultural workers' union, the National Farmers' Union or, indeed, the five independent members?

So far as I am aware, the present circumstances have never arisen before.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the broad mass of the nation will welcome the fact that not only is he the guardian of the agricultural industry but that he also has some regard for the battle against inflation and for the public purse?

What exactly did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that we had never been in this position before? Are we to assume that he means that there has never been such an dangerous inflationary situation, with which the Government are unable to cope?

The position to which I was referring was the position in which, after the Government had warned the National Farmers' Union, as they did in February, that we should have to examine the whole basis and procedures of the special Review, an application for an increase in wages was made to the Wages Board before the consultations to which I referred had been completed.

rose—

I really do not think we can debate this matter further at the moment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the vital principle involved and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that at the first opportunity I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the home producers of meat and bacon are able to obtain sufficient advance information about the likely supplies of imported meat reaching the British market in order to regulate their own sales so as to avoid accentuating price fluctuations.

A great deal of information is published, but I shall always be glad to consider any proposals for improving market intelligence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good thing if some official information on this point could be circulated?

I will look into that point, but I think that the source of meat which is of main interest at present is the Argentine, and the Argentine shipping programme is published three months in advance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that he has ample powers to ensure that the imported beef, mutton and bacon which is necessary to supplement home supplies reach the British market at times when it does not compete with the main deliveries from home sources and so does not accentuate price fluctuations; and if he will make a statement.

The freedom that has been restored to the meat market is the most effective means of ensuring that imported supplies are co-ordinated with home supplies. The bacon market will be free from next October.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be good Conservative policy that he should have some power to ensure that these fluctuations in imports should not in fact get out of control; and can he say whether he expects imports from the Argentine over the next twelve months to fluctuate at all greatly?

Naturally, I want the market to be as steady as possible throughout the year, taking the market as a whole. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would not expect any great change in the present rate of shipments over the next six months.

During the discussions on the 10 per cent. tariff, did the right hon. Gentleman reserve any right at all to restrict imports if such a contingency as that envisaged by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) arose?

The Agreement was for a period of four years, but there were various provisions contained in it for consultation if the Agreement was working out disadvantageously to the general interest.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amounts of beef, mutton and bacon imported during 1955; and how these quantities are expected to compare with imports during 1956; and if he will make a statement.

Three hundred and fifty-two thousand, 355,000 and 308,000 tons respectively. We expect this year to receive considerably more beef, probably enough with increased home production to restore consumption to its pre-war level. There may also be a little more mutton and lamb, but slightly less bacon.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his policy personally, and the policy of the Government, that beef production in this country shall remain a profitable and a fair trade for the home producer and consumer?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our desire that efficient beef production in the United Kingdom should be profitable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why he reduced the loan sanction required by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board for 1956–57 by one-sixth;

There is continuing consultation between my Department and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, and I know the Board is aware of the urgency of this scheme. The first section of the work is already in hand, and when proposals for the two remaining sections are submitted they will be dealt with as quickly as possible. The capital investment allocation to the Board was reduced on general financial grounds, but this was a provisional allocation, and my Department has informed the Board that an increase will be sympathetically considered if this is necessary to cover urgent works.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a breach of faith with the Board and with a promise given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary in the debate in the House in February last year? Is he further aware of the extreme suffering which is caused by these repeated floods, like the one we had last week in which a very large number of householders had a large amount of their property destroyed, for which they have no compensation? Is he aware that I had a telegram from the Chairman of the North London Productivity Council informing me that several hundred thousand hours of work had been lost due to this flood, and does he think that this form of restraint on capital expenditure is in the national interest?

When the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer, he will, I think, see that no application has been rejected. In fact, the first phase of the scheme has been completed. The second and third phase plans have not yet been received by me, and, as soon as they are, I have promised, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads my Answer, sympathetic consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that, because of recent meat prices, farmers in Pembrokeshire are transferring their livestock to milk production; and what steps he proposes to take to encourage his declared policy of stimulating home production of meat.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) on 18th July.

Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless make inquiries in west Wales, through his local office, as to the position now existing there and the extreme disillusionment which has been felt by the livestock producers of west Wales as a result of the price policy on meat?

I have made inquiries in South Wales. My officials there tell me that they have seen no sign so far, or heard talk, of the changeover to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As regards the question of profitability of beef, I have, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) just now, expressed the desire of the Government that the guaranteed prices be such that efficient beef production is profitable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Forestry Commission is taking to ensure that suitable accommodation is available on their retirement for its employees who are now working in the new forestry villages in Northumberland.

Houses are not specially provided by the Forestry Commission for retired workers. When tenants retire, they are given the sympathetic consideration normally extended by a good employer.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that rather special considerations apply in this area, which is very sparsely populated, and in which there are very few council houses, and that, since the Forestry Commission is bringing in employees from far and wide, unless the local authorities are given some special help there will be no homes available for these retired employees?

I do fully realise the point made by my hon. Friend. Fortunately, the average age of forestry workers at present is fairly low; but there is a problem here which we shall have to face, particularly in our forest villages.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be in a position to issue guidance to county councils regarding the promotion of road improvement schemes under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955.

I issued a memorandum to the local authorities concerned on the 13th of this month.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the people living in the remote areas have been waiting a long time for these minor roads to be improved? In order to discourage the drift from the land, will he ensure that these schemes are introduced at as early a date as possible?

I do appreciate that point very clearly indeed. Unfortunately, the restrictions on capital development which have become necessary will inevitably mean a postponement of the starting of these schemes. But I am anxious that local authorities should put forward their applications to us; we will approve them in principle, where we can, so that there will be the minimum delay when we are able to approve the starting dates.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the representations made to him by all the Members of Parliament for Shropshire and by the National Farmers' Union, if he will consider making a statement about the disposal of the grain silo at Newport, which is at present under his control.

As I anounced in the reply given on 16th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott), a tender has been accepted for a lease of the Newport silo to a group of 27 corn and agricultural merchants trading in Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. I understand that the group intend to operate a drying and storage service for home-grown grain on the lines of that run by Re-Commissioned Mills Limited in the past two seasons.

Is the Minister aware that this Answer will be well received by the farmers in The Wrekin division of Shropshire?

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the principle of free collective bargaining between the nationalised industries and the trade unions is endangered by the new Government price and wages policy; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the negotiating machinery in these circumstances.

The principle of free collective bargaining between the nationalised industries and the trade unions is in no way impaired by Government statements on the vital importance of defeating inflation and the conditions necessary to achieve that object.

If the right hon. Gentleman had heard the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells), I wonder whether he would have given the same Answer. Is he aware that there has been no consultation with the unions whose members are working in the nationalised industries, and that the Government's efforts to prevent the employers from being able to concede a wage advance at all really means that it is a sham and farce for the unions to try to get any improvement in the conditions of their members, irrespective of the type of wages they are receiving?

I did hear my right hon. Friend's Answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I adhere to the Answer which I have just given to the House. The other point I covered in my reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on 12th July, when I said that the responsibility of the nationalised industries remains exactly as it was before, and it is in any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, in large part a statutory responsibility.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain firms are instructing employment exchanges not to submit coloured workers for vacancies; that some exchanges are agreeing to this form of racial prejudice by inserting N.C. (no coloured) after the names of these firms on their lists; and if he will instruct exchanges not to send any more workers to employers making such a stipulation.

My employment exchanges are instructed in these cases to try and persuade the employer to withdraw such a requirement and to consider any suitable workers submitted to them by the exchange, which would in no circumstances itself discriminate in this way. If, however, the firm refuses to change its decision, it would not be consistent with my responsibility to refrain from sending other workers forward.

While appreciating the painstaking and often successful efforts of the employment exchanges and many firms to provide jobs for coloured workers, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that there are very big employers who operate a colour bar, whose names I could mention? Is it right, if we condemn what is taking place in South Africa and America, to condone the same thing on our own doorsteps, and would the Minister therefore consider withdrawing his Minstry's services from such offenders?

I do not condone such practices in any way, and I should be delighted to look into the cases which the hon. Gentleman mentions, if he will come and see me so that we may discuss them. The reply to the second part of his question is that I have a responsibility to workers to try to help them to obtain employment and to employers to try to help them to obtain workers. It would be quite inconsistent with those responsibilities if I refused to submit people for employment.

asked the Minister of Labour how many workers were engaged in the pottery industry in Stoke-on-Trent at the latest available date; and the number at a corresponding date in 1955.

Statistics of employment in local areas are obtained in respect of the end of May only in each year. Figures for May, 1956, are not yet available. At end-May, 1955, the estimated total number of employees in employment in the china and earthenware industry in Stoke-on-Trent was 58,500.

Is the Minister aware that the manufacturers now declare that they have lost over 2,000 men from the industry and that over 2,000 people are only partly employed? As this is such a serious matter, and as it is commonly believed by all sides of the industry in north Staffordshire that this recession is due entirely to the imposition of Purchase Tax, will the right hon. Gentleman represent that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Yes, I will represent what the hon. Member says, but my impression is that a great many other factors, including Continental competition, have had a substantial effect.

asked the Minister of Labour how many pottery workers have been placed into other industries by the employment exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent since autumn, 1955; and how many are signing on as totally and partially unemployed.

Employment exchanges in the Stoke-on-Trent area have placed about 960 pottery workers into other industries since last November. The latest available figures show 335 pottery workers registered as wholly unemployed, and 2,500 as temporarily stopped.

Will the Minister accept therefore, from his own Answer, that the situation is very much worse now than it was a few months ago? Can he make any suggestion as to how these craftsmen who are partially and totally unemployed can be placed, because it would appear from his Answer that there is now resistance to absorbing them in other industries?

The problem is essentially one of short-time working. The number of wholly unemployed has not increased measurably since November. The problem, therefore, is one of short-time working, and one hopes that it is a temporary problem.

asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 5,600 men dismissed by the British Motor Corporation in the Birmingham area have now been found alternative employment by his Department; and how many now remain registered as unemployed.

The total number who have registered for employment is 2,880. Of these confirmation of placing has been received to date in respect of 407. One thousand, six hundred and sixty-two are at present on the register as unemployed. A large number of these have been submitted for employment, but confirmation of placing has not yet been received: the balance of about 800 have not maintained their registration.

Are not these figures rather disquieting, even making all allowances for the shortness of time involved? Secondly, is it not a fact that many of the men are having to accept jobs in much lower-paid employment, with considerable hardship when they are involved up to the neck, so to speak, in house purchase, hire purchase and all the commitments which men often make when they begin to live up to a higher standard of living? Does not this show how very unfortunate the whole situation is?

The key figure is the number of those on the register as unemployed. Although the position changes from day to day, the figure at the moment is 1,662, of which a large proportion—over half, I think—have been submitted for employment. Speed is not the only or, indeed, the main factor, for in putting people forward for other occupations it may well be necessary for them to have more than one interview. I will give the House as clear a picture of the position as possible as soon as I can.

Has there been any break-down into types of the work that these men require? Are the Government making any constructive effort to get employers who require that type of worker to go into areas where the men are unemployed?

As I said in answer to Questions a week or so ago, we have been collecting vacancies from wide areas and encouraging large employers of labour—for example, the Transport Commission and other authorities—to make their requirements known in the areas where men are unemployed, and see how they can help.

asked the Minister of Labour how many employees in trades ancillary to the motor industry have recently been dismissed; and to what extent his Department has been successful in finding alternative employment for them.

According to reports from my local offices nearly 1,000 persons in the motor vehicle accessory and rubber industries were dismissed in the two weeks ending 14th July. I have so far received no reports from my local officers of any special difficulties in submitting those concerned to other employment.

As this constitutes a widening of unemployment from the original decisions of the B.M.C. and other motor car manufacturers, is it not time that the Government considered, as I have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, issuing a new White Paper explaining how, within the overall level of full employment, we maintain the flexibility that is needed with full employment, a White Paper which would tackle all the problems of movement to other jobs and of compensation, and give a general community lead on this issue to the nation as a whole?

As the hon. Member says, this is a widening of the position. To that extent it makes the provision of other employment easier, because as the redundancies are more scattered, so it is possible to submit people for other jobs. On the question of an inquiry into the motor car industry and the matters relating to compensation, etc., I have nothing to add to previous Answers which the President of the Board of Trade and I have given.

As the slackness is now spreading to these ancillary industries, will the Minister consider asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not feel that his credit squeeze is now getting out of hand, and will result in heavy unemployment unless he stops it?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor answered that very point in the recent debate on unemployment.