asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with woodland owners in the United Kingdom before deciding to release large stocks of timber from the strategic reserve, thus endangering the stability of the home market.

The associations representing woodland owners in the United Kingdom were told in confidence of the Board's plans for release of hardwood at a meeting of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee on 25th April, and were invited to make any representations they wished. No such representations have been received. I have no reason to think that our releases of timber endanger the stability of the home market.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the annually increasing quantity of home-grown timber suitable for both sawn and round mining timber; and what plans he has to ensure that full use is made of all this material and that no foreign exchange is spent on supplies from abroad which could be found equally well from home-grown resources.

Yes, Sir. I am aware that supplies of home-grown mining timber are increasing steadily. The National Coal Board is almost the only buyer of mining timber, and its buying policy in this and other spheres is determined by commercial considerations. I am informed, however, that the Board is at present taking all the available home-grown mining timber which is offered to it and is suitable for its purposes.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is reason to believe that the National Coal Board could take a small extra amount of timber, and that the amount available will increase every year? Is he also aware that about one-third of our imported mining timber is either paid for in dollars or comes from the Soviet Union, prepared presumably by slave labour or something nearly equal to it? Will he give an assurance that the home trade will not be made to take second place?

I have already said that the National Coal Board is taking all that is offered to it and is suitable for it. In 1955 that was 45 per cent. of its requirements. The proportion this year, my hon. Friend will be glad to know, is expected to be slightly higher.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake not to bring any pressure on the National Coal Board which will result in it taking pit props which might be unsuitable for its purposes?

Clearly it would be false economy to try to make the Board take unsuitable pit props, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) did not have that in mind.

Naturally.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now completed his inquiries into petrol distribution in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is considering the representations which have been made to him that the distribution of petrol should be referred to the Monopolies Commission, but he is not yet ready to make any further statement.

Is there any truth in the statement that distributors who do not join the large combines are charged 4d. a gallon more for their petrol?

I could not answer that question, at any rate without notice. If the hon. Member wants further specific information, perhaps he will agree to put a Question on the Order Paper.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that in the last three or four years the whole machinery of petrol distribution in this country has been revolutionised, and practically all garage proprietors, against their will in most cases, have been forced into these exclusive arrangements, and that the majority of consumers have shown that they are against them? In these circumstances, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission—and we understand that he cannot announce at this moment whether he is going to do so or not—will he consider establishing a Departmental inquiry into the whole question of oil distribution and the distribution by garage proprietors of accessories in the motor trade?

That is a large question, and I do not think that it arises at present.

Do I understand from the Minister that in the inquiries made so far this point has not emerged?

I did not mean to suggest that. All I said to the hon. Member was that, as it was not a point on which I was on notice, it was not a point that I had in mind. That is all that I intended to say.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman not studied the various representations made from this side of the House and through the authoritative article in the Economist on 14th January this year, more than six months ago? Has he not received a copy of the authoritative announcement issued by the Motor Accessories Manufacturers' Association?

Yes, Sir. I have studied a large and comprehensive literature on this and allied subjects, but I am not in a position to confirm whether statistics of the kind to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) referred are correct or otherwise, except on notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the leaders of the Soviet trade delegation will be given facilities to meet representatives of the woollen textile trade at Bradford with the object of increasing woollen exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Malyshev and his trade delegation are mainly concerned with the purchase of plant, machinery and instruments. But we have reminded them of our interest in the export of consumer goods. I specifically told Mr. Malyshev I would welcome a visit by him or a member of his delegation to the woollen and cotton textile industries before they leave.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am sure that the manufacturers and the trade unions in Yorkshire and Lancashire will be delighted with that statement?

asked the President of the Board of Trade for what purpose he finds it necessary to keep import controls on newsprint.

There are two reasons. The first is that we could not yet afford the substantial increase in imports necessary to satisfy the full estimated home demand. We are, however, at present prepared to licence imports of a greater quantity of newsprint than is available.

Is it a fact that newsprint is allowed for papers without an import licence? Why not use the import licensing system for more essential purposes?

As I have explained, import licensing governs the import of newsprint, and licences are necessary; but it does not restrict supplies at the moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the official plans of the Indian Government to increase production of textiles for export from that country by approximately 300 million yards; and what conversations he has had with the Indian Government regarding the proportion of such increased production of Indian textiles to enter this country.

Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned to Mr. Nehru, whilst he was in London recently, the anxiety in Lancashire about the possible growth of duty-free textile imports and suggested to him that it would be in the interest of both the United Kingdom and India if there were discussions between representatives of the textile industries of the two countries. The way lies open for such talks.

Whilst welcoming this initiative and expressing my hope that it will have some success, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he could arrange for any reports of conversations that may take place between Lancashire and Indian industrialists on this matter to be made available to those of us who are interested?

I think that is a matter for the industry. The talks will be between businessmen, and I have a feeling that my hon. Friend may have closer access to them than he indicates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if the Indians cannot export the simple products which they are capable of manufacturing at the present time, they will be unable to buy the plant and machinery with which to carry out their development plans?

Yes, Sir, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind the other factors indicated.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will protest to the United States Administration against its granting export subsides on cotton textiles which constitute unfair competition with British exports of the same goods.

We have told the United States Government on a number of occasions of the dangers and difficulties liable to be created by their raw cotton price policy. The United States Government have assured us that they do not intend any unfair advantage for their exporters, but we have specifically reiterated our opposition to subsidies on the export of textiles and other manufactured goods.

Has my right hon. Friend taken up the proposed policy of the United States Government to subsidise exports of textiles by making a formal protest to G.A.T.T. in Geneva?

I do not think that the time has yet come for what my hon. Friend has suggested, if it should ever come. The United States has not yet published the exact details of these export subsidy proposals. It is expected that it may do so before the end of this month, and I think we should look at the details first.

Yes, but will the right hon. Gentleman say whether export subsidies which are not matched by corresponding subsidies for production in the home market are or are not an infringement of G.A.T.T., and if an infringement is shown here, will the right hon. Gentleman take action by raising this matter at Geneva, and demand either the withdrawal of these subsidies or compensation in some other part of Anglo-American trade relations?

I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the House will think that we intend to be backward in this matter. We attach great importance to it. What G.A.T.T. provides for is that any new subsidy on exports which results in export prices becoming lower than domestic prices for comparable goods would be contrary to the revised Article 16.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to assist the pottery industry since short-time working commenced and discharges were made; what representations have been made to him or letters received from the trade unions and manufacturers' organisations; and what reply has been made and what action is proposed.

My right hon. Friend visited Stoke-on-Trent in January and had a very full discussion with both sides of the industry. Since then he has received periodical reports on the situation from the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation, and officials of the Board met the Federation's Export Promotion Committee in Stoke-on-Trent on 11th July to discuss the latest report.

But has his right hon. Friend reported to the Parliamentary Secretary what the manufacturers told him?

My right hon. Friend does not report to me in that sense, but we seek to advance these matters in full co-operation.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the need to solve the balance of payments problem, he has lifted the import controls on paper, paper board, wood-pulp and all paper-making material.

The United Kingdom, along with other members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, accepted in January, 1955, the obligation to free 90 per cent. of the imports from other member countries from import restrictions. To achieve this we had to remove import controls from pulp, paper and board. Until recently, for balance of payments reasons, we felt bound to maintain all existing import restrictions. In deciding to remove these controls as from 22nd July we had in mind that the maintenance of a high degree of liberalisation of trade in Europe is one of the main objectives of our commercial policy, not least in the interest of our own exports and so of our balance of payments.

Is the Minister saying that our balance of payments problem is now so much less difficult than it was and that, therefore, we can afford this kind of thing; or is he able to tell us that we get some compensating increase in our export business to balance the increase in imports?

No, Sir, what I am saying is that the liberalisation of trade in Europe is very important to our commercial policy and to our balance of payments, that there has been some improvement since last year, and that now seemed to be the right time to take this step forward.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a price ring in regard to the retailing of cricket balls; and what action he proposes to take.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 19th July.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the North Yorkshire and South Durham Cricket League, which claims to know something about this game, alleges that when it sought quotations recently, every one of the firms asked to quote quoted 50s. 6d. for a grade A cricket ball, and that quite a number of quotations were received from a number of firms? If this is evidence that there is a ring, and I think it is, will the hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?

If there is such a ring it would be registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, and would in due course be a matter for the consideration of the Restrictive Practices Court.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total dollar value of import licences for manufactured goods from Canada and the United States of America granted by his Department for the last convenient twelve-monthly period.

Information about the total value of licences issued is not available

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available a list showing the description of all manufactured goods imported from Canada and the United States of America under licence from his Department during the past twelve months.

Yes, Sir. A specific licence by value or quantity is required for the import from North America of most kinds of manufactured goods and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing recorded imports from Canada and the United States under Class D of the Import List for the twelve months ended May, 1956.

asked the President of the Board of Trade upon what basis the allocation of import licences for manufactured goods from Canada and the United States of America is made.

The basis of allocation varies between commodities. If my hon. Friend would let me know which commodity he has in mind I will give him the details.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that agricultural tractors supplied by makers in the United Kingdom for export to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be supplied with grease and lubricants of a grade recommended for use with these tractors by the manufacturers for the proper running of the machines, and if he will therefore grant the necessary export licences of these lubricants.

Applications to export such lubricants will be considered on their merits.

Can my right hon. Friend say, therefore, how it comes about that export licences for this type of grease have already been turned down, and would he reconsider those applications?

The fact is that we have exported since the war eleven agricultural tractors to the Soviet Union, and I think that the application for the lubricants concerned enough lubricant to lubricate about 2,000 tractors. That is quite a different matter.

In view of the fact that the Russians themselves are exporting lubricants and oils, what conceivable reason can there be why British interests should not be safeguarded by sending the oil, even if it is in excess of the tractors supplied?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well the importance of the Soviet List, and of adhering to international agreements in this matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade which organisations in the film industry and cinema trade have made representations to him in favour of the publication of the report of the National Film Finance Corporation on future film policy; and if he will now reconsider the question of publication in view of these representations.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. In addition, the film trade unions in their memorandum to the National Film Finance Corporation, which. was copied to the Board, urged that the Corporation or, if appropriate, the Board, should publish the Corporation's report, together with all memoranda of evidence received from the various trade bodies. However, my right hon. Friend has not so far altered his view that the advice given to him by the Corporation should be treated as confidential.

Will not the Parliamentary Secretary make representations to his right hon. Friend about this matter, in view of the fact that the most important organisations in the trade have now made representations in favour of publication? And as very important decisions about the film quota will be based on this Report in the next few months, surely those who work in the industry are entitled to know what recommendations and conclusions the N.F.F.C. reaches on the basis of their evidence?

All these recommendations are being given, and will be given, very careful consideration. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a wide range of bodies have been consulted, and certainly not all of those expected that the advice which they gave would be liable to publication.

Yes, but does the hon. and learned Gentleman not recall that the device of using the N.F.F.C. for this purpose was the rather feeble response of the Government to the proposal that we put from this side of the House, namely, that there should now be a full inquiry into all aspects of the film industry in this country, including the serious growth of monopoly in the film industry under the present Government? It is now many years since there was such a comprehensive inquiry and since we had the Plant-Palache Report, the Gater Report and the Plant Report. Does he not feel it is essential therefore, that anything coming out of this inquiry should be made generally available to this House and to the public?

No, Sir. The committee which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was rejected for various good and sufficient reasons. This is a different exercise in which the Government are seeking advice so that they can make up their own mind about the right policy to pursue. It by no means follows that all advice tendered to Governments should necessarily be available for publication.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration has been given to the possibility of developing reciprocal trade agreements between this country and those British Colonial Territories now approaching self-government.

We shall consider this question as each country attains self-government.

Does not the Minister agree that that is an inadequate reply, in view of the invaluable nature of the economic bridge between these Colonial Territories and ourselves? Cannot he indicate some overall plan which, with imagination and generosity, can help us look forward to a closer economic link between the Colonial Territories and ourselves?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the invaluable nature of the economic link between this country and the Colonial Territories, but I think an agreement entered into during the period of dependence might be liable, by that very fact, to be viewed critically by the Government of the Colonial Territory when it became independent. I think it much wiser to go on as we have been doing, trusting in the element of mutual interest and the maintenance of understanding and cordial relations between our countries to keep our trade at its maximum.

Surely that would not mean that if a dependent territory made a request for a reciprocal agreement the President of the Board of Trade would not encourage such development?

If it was a dependent territory, there might be difficulties about that inherent in the phrase itself, but we should certainly consider such a request.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Nigeria and the Gold Coast, which are approaching full self-government, do not at present give any Imperial Preference?

I am aware of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when a new tenant will occupy the factory in Shotts vacated by Francis Sumner Limited.

My right hon. Friend has not yet succeeded in securing a new tenant for the factory which Francis Sumner & Company are to vacate. As he told the hon. Lady on 5th July, we are doing all we can to get one.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman be more specific and tell me exactly what he and his right hon. Friend are doing to get a new tenant for the factory? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, according to the Minister of Labour, there is very little likelihood of 166 women who are unemployed getting any work at all in the surrounding area?

That is why we are as desirous as the hon. Lady is of finding a tenant to go into the factory. We have communicated full details of the factory and its facilities to our controllers in all the regions other than the Development Areas themselves.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement in respect of trading agreements or adjustment of fiscal policy between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian Government.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's Answer to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) on 12th July.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to make some more encouraging statement than the one made on that occasion, particularly in view of our recent losses in the export trade and the harm caused to our home trade itself? Cannot he give us some indication of what might happen?

There have been statements about the full range of subjects discussed, and I think it much better to adhere to the normal practice of making a statement at the proper time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a committee to consider the management and control of large-scale private enterprise, and to report to what extent the national interest is protected by the present methods of control and management by boards of directors and the interests of the workers are adequately considered, how far it is desirable that the organised workers should be represented on the boards of management of private industry, and what effect there is on privately controlled large-scale enterprises by take-over bids.

No, Sir.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that under the present management and control in some of our large-scale private industries we are being led straight to disaster? Does he not think that the present system, which vests complete control in managements which are prepared to use workers to the full in times of prosperity but will throw them on the scrap heap immediately trade slackens off, is wrong? Does he not realise that a new and dynamic force, which can come only from the workers, is needed in British industry? Has he read today's Daily Express, which calls for an inquiry into one great enterprise, B.S.A., by the President of the Board of Trade, and will he reconsider his decision and hold such an inquiry?

I have not read the article about the B.S.A., but it would obviously be directed to a subject different from that dealt with in the Question. On the generality of the matter, the Government, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, welcome machinery for joint consultation, and there already exists very elaborate and extensive machinery for this purpose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions took place at the recent meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London on the subject of the establishment of a common market in Western Europe; and whether he will make a statement;

I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Question Time covering these Questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to improve the form and timing of the statistical information at his disposal.

I hope to make a statement before the Recess on the plans which we are making to improve our economic statistics.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask him to bear in mind the possibility of acompanying the monthly trade figures, which are subject to so many distorting factors, by some explanatory memorandum on the terms and trends of trade? Would he not agree that if we do not have something of that nature there is a danger that our economic destinies may be conducted by economists who form unintelligible conclusions on non-existent premises?

I will bear that in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he has for restricting the sums which company directors are allowed to charge as expenses.

I shall keep this matter under close review, but I would point out that the law already provides substantial safeguards for the protection of the revenue in the handling of claims for expenses.

Does the Chancellor really think that this talk about substantial safeguards will satisfy public opinion, which has been aroused as a result of the Docker revelations? Does he not realise that people are now asking to what extent this charging of expenses is going on in a wide range of industries?

Yes, Sir, but I cannot make statements about individual cases. All I say, which is true, is that I believe that the law has specific safeguards, and that those safeguards are applied.

Is it not the case that poor Sir Bernard Docker's claim for expenses was turned down?

Since recent evidence has shown that what my hon. Friends and I said in the Budget debate about the inadequacy of these safeguards was more than abundantly justified, will the Chancellor, in keeping the situation under review, bear in mind the suggestion that a number of us made that only a percentage of the amount devoted to business expenses by any firm should be accepted by the Revenue as expenses deductible for Income Tax and Profits Tax purposes?

I would, of course, bear in mind any representations the right hon. Gentleman has made or may make, but he must not expect me now to anticipate my next Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers in this country are being allowed claims for expenses in excess of £10,000 a year.

Statistics of this nature about individual claims are not available. But I would remind the hon.

Why is the Chancellor being so coy in refusing to give this information? Does he not realise that great damage is being done to industrial relations by the revelation that some people are able to get away with enormous expenses? Is he also aware that hon. Members feel that they are treated by the Income Tax assessors very differently from the way in which Sir Bernard Docker is treated?

It would, of course, help me very much if I could break a long-established rule and give the facts of individual cases which are known to me, but it would be a breach of a privilege which has long been established, and it would be a very dangerous practice if Ministers were to be questioned about the tax returns of individuals.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much were the expenses of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) when he was running the groundnuts scheme, which cost the country over £36 million?

My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to disclose the circumstances of individual taxpayers. However, since the Chancellor has told us that he is keeping the matter under review, will he explain how he can keep it properly under review if he does not collect for his own use the kind of statistics referred to in the Question? Secondly, is he not aware of the very strong feeling held in all parts of the country, and, I am sure, on both sides of the House, about the different treatment as between Schedule E employees, whether wage earners or salary earners up to a considerable figure, and those who can take advantage of business expenses?

The second part of the Question deals with a subject which we have discussed many times and is always a matter which can be reviewed. With regard to the first part, we make sample inquiries and of course we collect the statistics, but I am very loth to be drawn, even to my own advantage in the argument, into dealing with what would gradually become questions about individual taxpayers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are laid down for consultation with the staffs of Government Departments before decisions are taken affecting the closing down of regional offices and the transfer of their staff to other regions.

It is for the head of the Department concerned to decide whether or not a regional office should be closed. The normal Whitley procedures apply. This means that the staff would always be consulted about the arrangements for putting any such decision into effect, but would not necessarily be consulted before the decision was reached.

Will the Chancellor take note of the fact that recently the regional office of the Ministry of Works in Nottingham was closed and the staff abruptly informed that it was to be transferred to Birmingham? Does it not make a mockery of joint consultation when a decision is reached before consultation takes place?

That matter of a decision is surely a matter for the Government of the day, or for the Ministers concerned. What is important is that there should be full consultation and ample time for any transfer to take place without inconvenience to those concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage rise in the consumers' index from 1946 to 1948; what has been the percentage rise in the retail price index from 1948 to May, 1956; and, by comparing the percentage increase in the retail price index with the percentage increase in the consumers' index, what is the combined percentage increase on the basis of 1946.

Between 1946 and 1948 the Consumer Price Index rose by 15 per cent. Between 1948 and May, 1956, the Index of Retail Prices rose by 46 per cent. It cannot be assumed that if the Retail Price Index could be carried back to 1946 it would show the same movement as the Consumer Price Index between 1946 and 1948. The two indices could not therefore properly be linked in the way suggested in the last part of the Question.

Is the Chancellor aware that the figures clearly indicate that since 1946 the consumers' index has risen every year by 1 per cent. less than the retail index, and that the two indices taken together show a rise of 71 per cent. from 1946 to May, 1956; and that if those figures were applied to pensions, old-age pensions would be increased to 71s. 9d. a week?

That is what one might call the 64-dollar question. I found great difficulty and worked very hard to get the answer to the Question, but the trouble is that the hon. Member's right hon. Friends changed the system in 1947. I did not change the system; they did. I am informed by the highest mathematical and statistical authorities, and what the hon. Member has just said leads me to suppose that he has drawn the wrong inferences from insufficient premises.

When the right hon. Gentleman has fully imbibed and studied the statistical advice given to him by my hon. Friend, will he go further into the question of how far these indices are affected by the rising costs of mortgages by building societies? Will he explain to the House how the latest increase in the interest rates of building societies squares, first, with his proposals for a plateau of stability, and, secondly, with the Prime Minister's "property-owning democracy"?

The right hon. Gentleman is usually so courteous and so relevant that I do my best to answer even his supplementary questions, but that one had nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase in men's earnings, women's earnings, and salaries, separately, from 1946 to the latest possible date.

Average weekly wage earnings increased by 85 per cent. for men and 77 per cent. for women between October, 1946, and October, 1955. Comparable figures for salaries are not available.

I am rather surprised. It is amazing to think that the Chancellor can tell the House that he cannot find the figures for salaries when they are in a Blue Book. Is it not correct that under the head of "salaries" are the earnings of practically all the professional men in the country and almost the whole of the middle classes? When the salaries and wages are rising so fast—men's earnings 84 per cent., salaries 90 per cent.—is it not time, when old-age pensions have risen by only 55 per cent., that something was done for pensioners?