asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to resume the trade discussions with Rumania, having regard to the possibilities of obtaining dollar-saving commodities from this source.

I have nothing to add to my predecessor's Answer to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 4th December last.

Is the Minister aware that Rumania has agreements with 62 countries but not with Britain, that at the moment trade between Rumania and West Germany is running at £21 million a year, and that a recent delegation appointed from West Germany to go to Bucharest will substantially increase this amount? Surely the commodities which Rumania has to trade, such as fodder, grain, petroleum products, timber, oil seed and newsprint, are important products to this country? Will the Minister please make it his business to see whether we cannot at long last get a satisfactory trading agreement with Rumania?

I am aware that Rumania has trading agreements with many other countries, but she has very large debts with this country and we expect her to make some gesture on those debts.

Is the Minister aware of the agreement which France has entered into with Rumania for the allocation of 6 per cent. of the value of the trade done annually to a special fund until the necessary figure is reached to liquidate the debts between the two countries?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to encourage increased imports of tobacco from China and Bulgaria and so to reduce next season the scale of imports of tobacco involving the expenditure of dollars.

Imports of tobacco are on private account. I am prepared to grant licences freely for imports from China and Bulgaria.

I am very glad to have that reply from the Minister. I hope he realises that if we are not careful we shall lose the race with Japan and West Germany. Last year the trade between Japan and China was £47 million, which is more than double the trade with this country. I think that we ought to do our utmost to increase our trade with China—

This is not an occasion for the hon. Member to tell us what he thinks. He should ask a very short supplementary question, not these long questions.

Does not the Minister think that we could increase our trade in tobacco with Bulgaria, and would that not be a very good dollar saver? What steps does he propose to do that?

I have told the hon. Member that licences are free. If he likes to smoke Bulgarian tobacco, he can do so.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering possible tobacco imports from Bulgaria, that at the moment there is a considerable amount of tobacco in Southern Rhodesia which has not yet been sold?

There is another Question on the Order Paper about Southern Rhodesia, and in answering it I will try to answer my hon. Friend.

Is it the Government's general policy to seek non-dollar tobacco wherever we can get it, particularly in the Commonwealth?

It is on open licence. That is so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the prices quoted to the agricultural industry for jute sacks are identical; and if he will take steps to submit this matter to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.

I understand that suppliers quote identical prices for jute sacks. Agreements on prices are covered by the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1956, and the parties must furnish particulars of them to the Registrar.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, and appreciating the difficulties of the jute trade, may I draw his attention to the fact that those difficulties are very largely brought about by Government trading in jute? Will he bring about a position in which the law of supply and demand can again operate by free competition?

I will try, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the importance of dollar exports to this country and the record in this regard held by the 83-year-old Hawick knitwear firm of Lyle and Scott, what steps he proposes taking to ensure that those exports are not lost through this firm passing, by means of a take-over bid, into other hands.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take in response to the request of the directors of Lyle and Scott, of Hawick, that he should intervene in the take-over bid made by another firm.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take as a result of the representations made to him concerning the take-over bid of £600,000 for Messrs. Lyle and Scott Limited, Hawick.

I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer given on 5th February by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to Questions asked by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Leith (Mr. Hoy).

I have read that Answer, and I am pleased to see that the officials of the Board of Trade are to meet the chairman of this company. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself might meet the chairman, bearing in mind that two-thirds of the company's exports of knitwear go to the dollar market, and that those exports might be lost if there were a change of control?

The company was invited to come to the Board of Trade, but we have had no answer to our invitation. I am aware of the nature of the export business.

Has my right hon. Friend any power to see that the buyer of this business does not put into the home market stocks which would otherwise be exported? If he has not such power, has he any power to acquire it, so that those products are not put into the home market when they could be sold in the dollar market?

I have a very large number of powers already. I really do not wish to add to them.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that his attitude is much more helpful than was that of the Secretary of State for Scotland when we raised this matter on Tuesday?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to restrict imports of goods from Hong Kong, what other steps he proposes to take to save the knitted woollen gloves industry in Leicester and other parts of the country from being eliminated.

I do not accept the hon. Member's view that, in the absence of action by Her Majesty's Government, the knitted wool glove industry will be eliminated. Although imports of knitted wool gloves from Hong Kong increased substantially last year, United Kingdom production up to the end of October, the latest date for which returns are available, showed an increase each quarter over the corresponding quarter of 1955.

May I ask the President to convey to his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State my thanks for having informed me that tomorrow he is going to Leicester to meet industrialists? May I also ask, through the President, whether the Minister of State will, while there, inquire into the parlous condition in which this particular Leicester industry finds itself? May I further ask where the Minister got his information from, and whether it is not a fact that 500,000 pairs of knitted gloves were manufactured in this country in 1956, whereas 900,000 pairs were imported from Hong Kong? And is he aware that the position is growing progressively worse—

Order. That is quite enough for one supplementary question, surely.

My right hon. and learned Friend will, of course, make excellent use of his time in Leicester, and no doubt, if the hon. Gentleman's case is as stated, he will hear about it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for the last convenient period the amount of X-ray film suitable for dental purposes exported from this country, the amount imported, and the sources and cost thereof.

These goods are not separately distinguished in the trade returns.

Is the President aware that in respect of the largest firm of suppliers there is a three months' delay, and that much of the imported film being used for dental purposes is inferior to that which we are exporting and involves dentists and patients in frequent retakes and delays? Will he look into this question?

I will look into that. I was not aware of it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that all manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and those organisations that supply services to the general public shall register with his Department all price increases that are made in their products and services, either directly or indirectly as a result of the oil and petrol shortage, of the increase in the price of these commodities or of the 1s. tax thereon, and ensure that such registered price increases shall be removed one month after petrol derationing, on a similar basis to the removal of the 1s. petrol tax.

No, Sir. Such a proposal could not be made to work.

Why could it not be made to work? Surely the Minister is aware that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced such a Measure in relation to the petrol tax? Could not the President introduce a Measure such as is suggested in the Question, so that we can be sure that those prices will fall once the extra 1s. is removed?

No. I think that if the hon. Gentleman were to consult traders he would find it quite impossible to distinguish exactly what, if any, cost increase was attributable to the 1s. rise in petrol tax.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the inspectors appointed by his Department to inquire into matters affecting the Gordon Hotels Limited; how many meetings these inspectors have held into matters affecting the Gordon Hotels Limited since March, 1956; and whether he anticipates receiving their report before the end of the present financial year.

The inspectors appointed by my predecessor were Mr. Melford Stevenson, Q.C., and Mr. D. V. House, chartered accountant. I do not know how many meetings the inspectors have thought it necessary to hold. I hope to receive their report very shortly.

Surely the Minister ought to have found out how many meetings have been held so that he could have answered the Question. Is he aware that the shareholders are very annoyed with him and with his Department because, for over twelve months, they have been waiting to get this sorry state of affairs cleared up? Will he do something to get this report before the shareholders have their requisitioned meeting next week?

Mr. Melford Stevenson has, I believe, been engaged on some other business, and he states that we shall get the report very shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the protest by the Rhodesian Tobacco Board against his forecast that the United Kingdom will further reduce its demand for Rhodesian tobacco in 1959.

A forecast was made by the leading United Kingdom tobacco manufacturers. The protest by the Rhodesian Tobacco Marketing Board was accordingly addressed to them and not to me.

Would not the Minister agree that it really is essential to increase the consumption of Commonwealth tobacco in this country as one means of saving dollars?

I understand that pretty well all the tobacco of good quality from Rhodesia is now bought.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties is the fear of the tobacco companies that if they were to increase the percentage of Commonwealth tobacco their sales might suffer? Would he, therefore, consider inviting the heads of the cigarette manufacturing industry to meet him, with a view to getting a uniform increase in the percentage of Commonwealth tobacco in cigarettes?

I am always willing to see the manufacturers on any subject.

Is the President also aware that at one time there was a very useful ad valorem duty which gave some protection to the Commonwealth product, but that, since the increase in domestic taxation, that duty has been absolutely swamped? Will he see what else he can do to restore the protection which this Commonwealth product formerly had?

Protection is given, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman can see, by another method. It is given by the quota method.

But will not the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative himself in regard to this?

I am ready to look at this matter but, as I understand it, the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt)—that a change in the proportion of American tobacco might have very serious effects upon the cigarette industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to make known to prospective overseas visitors the arrangements for extra petrol for tourists in the United Kingdom.

My Department issued a statement on 21st December about the arrangements for overseas visitors and arranged for wide publicity to be given to it through United Kingdom posts abroad and the British Travel and Holidays Association.

As persons overseas must arrange their holidays early in the year, would my right hon. Friend give further publicity to this Answer, so that we may get as many visitors here as possible, spending their money?

Yes, Sir. I think it is very important to have as many visitors as possible this summer.

While it is important to have as many overseas visitors as possible, is it not grossly undignified for a country like ours to lay itself open to giving overseas visitors a superior way of life compared with that of its own nationals? While we all hope that petrol rationing will be abandoned as soon as possible—and, I hope, in favour of a free market, even if the Canal is not opened—let us hope also that those who visit our country share in our own griefs and our own sorrows.

If my noble Friend cares to take his car across the Channel, he will get the same generous treatment as we are giving to tourists who come here.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion our total trade with China in 1937–38 was of our total foreign trade; and the proportion at the most convenient recent date.

United Kingdom total trade with China in 1937 and 1938 amounted to 1·0 per cent. and 0·8 per cent. respectively of our total foreign trade for these years, while in the twelve months ended 31st December, 1956, the proportion was 0·3 per cent.

Does that difference not alarm the Minister? Is he aware that during the autumn, when in China, a number of us were assured by Ministers of the Government that China is anxious to expand trade with us and that on our own side businessmen in this country—I name particularly the Bergius Engineering Company in Glasgow, about which I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman's Department—are anxious that that trade should be expanded? Can the Minister not give us some further information than we have at present as to when trade may become nearer the pre-war norm?

The Government are anxious that trade in non-strategic goods with China should expand, and we are doing our best.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the amount of revenue that has accrued from the imposition of the 30 per cent. Purchase Tax since it was imposed on domestic earthenware and china, giving the figures separately, as well as the total amount, to the nearest available date;

(2) the amount by which the revenue has benefited from the imposition of the 30 per cent. Purchase Tax on pottery for domestic use in Britain, up to the latest date.

Receipts of tax to date, which reflect the eleven months trading from 27th October, 1955, to 30th September, 1956, are estimated to amount to £4¾ million for all pottery. Of this sum about £3¾ million relates to earthenware, about £¾ million to china, and about £¼ million to other kinds of pottery.

Is the Minister aware that it was hoped originally when this tax was imposed that £7 million a year would be gained from it, and apparently that has not been achieved? is the hon. Gentleman further aware that during this period, and as a result of this tax, the workers have left the industry to the extent of some 12 per cent., and that there is unemployment and a great deal of short-time working? Does the hon. Gentleman think it has been worth while?

I am aware of the difficulties of the industry, and an indication has been given that those difficulties are being considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can give of the cost of giving retrospective effect to Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1956, in all cases where the total tax and duty paid exceeds 20s. in the £; and how many such cases would be involved.

I regret that this information could not be obtained without undue expenditure of time and labour.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the number of cases involved is not likely to be large? In view of the obvious injustice of imposing a levy exceeding 20s. in the £, would not my hon. Friend persuade his right hon. Friend to introduce retrospective legislation, following a well-known precedent, even though the benefit will go to the taxpayer and not to the Treasury?

But the injustice which the Finance Bill last year sought to remedy was not confined to cases where the total burden amounts to more than 20s. in the £.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will discuss with the Canadian Government the possibility of coming to some mutual arrangement to make it possible for citizens of the United Kingdom to buy dollars for private visits to Canada.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to allow a small allocation of

Figures published by the Canadian Government covering the years 1946 to 1955 inclusive show that there was not long-term disinvestment by the United Kingdom of nearly £60 million in total over the years 1946 to 1950, and not investment of nearly £125 million over the years 1951 to 1955. These figures exclude inter-Government loans.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing figures for individual years.

Although my right hon. Friend cannot commit himself at this stage, he is anxious to provide a basic travel allowance for the dollar area as soon as circumstances permit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present exchange control regulations have prevented a great many people visiting Canada who would wish to do so, which means that few people in this country are getting to know much about Canada? Is he not aware that that may in the end weaken the ties between Canada and the United Kingdom?

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the desirability of such an allowance, if it can be managed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the respective proportions of gold and of dollar funds in Great Britain's gold and dollar reserve.

It is not the practice to reveal the composition of the reserves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is well known that the reserve contains a very high proportion of gold? Therefore, will he follow the more perspicacious example of Finance Ministers of other countries in Western Europe and substantially increase the dollar balances in the reserve, as the dollar balances earn 3 per cent. whereas bars of gold are productively inert?

I will note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent increased expenditure on beer from £195 millions in 1938 to £535 million in 1956 was accounted for by increased duty.

The duty accounted for about 57 per cent, of the increase of £340 million.

If the bulk of the increase is due to more duty rather than to greater thirst, will the Financial Secretary say whether the Chancellor is considering a higher or lower rate of duty in the forthcoming Budget?

I must in no circumstances anticipate my right hon. Frend's Budget statement.

Would my hon. Friend agree that while the brewing industry, by its efficiency and private enterprise, has done everything possible to keep prices down, the recent increase in the price of beer in some parts of the country is almost entirely due to increased taxation?

I should like to see that question first.

While we understand that the hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate his right hon. Friend's Budget statement, will he say what proportion of this increase in revenue is due to weaker beer?

I should like to see that question too.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that former Prime Ministers are able to claim a pension of £2,000 per annum on vacating office, whereas Members of Parliament, who only receive one-tenth of the salary of a Prime Minister, are not entitled to claim any pension; and whether he will remedy this anomaly by introducing legislation conferring non-contributory pension rights upon Members of Parliament.

I am aware of the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Minister of the Crown Act, 1937, but I see no connection between them and the question of pensions for Members of Parliament.

Does the Minister see the connection in the fact that Ministers, civil servants and former Prime Ministers all receive much higher salaries than Members of Parliament but do not have to meet the cost of their postage and other expenses as Members of Parliament do? Why should Members of Parliament be compelled to contribute to a pension fund upon which they can make no claim? They are not entitled to claim a pension. Surely they should at least be treated in the same way as civil servants or former Prime Ministers in this matter?

I distinguish there at least four separate questions, none of which is on the Paper.

Before Members of Parliament vote themselves bigger pensions, would it not be better to deal with certain deserving sections of the population—for instance, old-age pensioners?

Is it not really invidious that hon. Members who have served many years in this House and who have reached an advanced age should be compelled, in reduced circumstances, to apply to the pension fund which is subject to a means test? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only Parliament in the world, certainly among the Commonwealth countries, where no pension scheme is available?

I am asked here to comment on an alleged anomaly between pensions for ex-Prime Ministers and the absence of a non-contributory pension for Members of Parliament. I see no such anomaly, and therefore no reason for legislation to correct it.

Quite apart from any particular anomaly contained there, may we not ask the hon. Gentleman to display a little sympathy and humanity in this matter? Is he not aware, as a result of his years of experience in this House, that a number of our older colleagues are really getting to a very difficult stage indeed, and grave hardship is liable to overtake them? Now that we have had a clean sweep at the Treasury, may we not ask the new Treasury team to consider this question with a sense of humanity?

If there is such a case, it is not connected with the existence of a pension for ex-Prime Ministers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, the cold reply from the Minister, and his manner of dealing with this question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at an early opportunity on the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the present category of exceptions to the suspension of investment allowances so as to include the steel, shipbuilding, heavy electrical industries and such other manufacturing industries for which greater capital expenditure is now essential.

My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

In taking steps to increase capital expenditure, will the Minister accept the principle of selectivity?

I do not think it is the principle which is at stake, but the application.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of Treasury policy, capital investment in this country is now falling compared with that of our principal trading rivals? Is he further aware that the previous Economic Secretary, on being asked whether the Government wanted investment to go up or down, would not answer, but in the end said he wanted it to be selective. Does not this Question provide the means by which the Treasury could encourage selective increases in essential investment?

I heard the previous Economic Secretary's reply to the right hon. Gentleman and thought it very effective.

On a point of order. The statement referred to was not a reply to me but was a reply to a debate—in which I did not take part—in the House of Commons on the Thursday before the Christmas Recess. Would the hon. Gentleman now look up the actual terms of the statement?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now carrying out a review of the Entertainments Duty, as promised by his predecessor, with special reference to the incidence of the duty on cinemas.

The review of the Entertainments Duty, which was initiated by my right hon. Friend last June, is continuing. It covers all aspects of the duty, including the position of cinemas.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken for the establishment of a national centre for nuclear physics where the Atomic Energy Authority and the universities can co-operate in research in nuclear physics.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement about this very shortly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to reduce the cost of imports from dollar sources to levels below those ruling early in 1956, in order to help pay for the additional oil required from dollar sources without making claim on our reserves; and what further such measures he has in mind.

I cannot add to the Answer which the Prime Minister, when Chancellor, gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) and Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 18th December.

Cannot my right hon. Friend at least say that some special measures are being taken and that the whole of this extra cost is not being drawn from our reserves?

The answers to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend's Question were to the effect that we thought that the best chance of prosperity in this country lay in the stimulation of trade, rising world trade and increasing British exports, rather than in restrictions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average time now taken by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to print and issue the reports of Departmental committees.

The time varies considerably according to the size of the report. During the last three months the average has been about five weeks.

Is it not a fact that in the case of at least one report six months have elapsed between the time when it was presented and the time when it was printed and published? Will the Treasury consider afresh whether it might not be a good plan, if there is congestion in the printing works of the Stationery Office, to put some of the work out to tender?

I will look at the case which my hon. Friend mentions, but I think that the figures which I have given show that the Stationery Office does this work with reasonable expedition.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) his estimate of the rateable value of new buildings in St. Pancras which are in rateable occupation but for which his Department has proposed no assessment;

(2) how many notifications have been received by his local valuation officer from the St. Pancras Borough Council of changes requiring alterations in the valuation list; how many have been dealt with; and how many remain outstanding.

Up to now, 487 notifications of new and altered properties have been received, and 275 of these have been dealt with. Of the others, 40 have been valued, but proposals for alteration of the valuation list have not yet been issued by the valuation officer. The remainder are being dealt with as rapidly as possible. It is not possible to make an estimate of the rateable value of these properties because they have not yet been inspected.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that these matters will be dealt with before 31st March so that the local authority does not lose its right of recovery? Secondly, is the Minister aware that, solely because of delays in his Department, the local authority has been deprived of about £200,000 of rate income for the current year and has had to borrow at 5½ per cent.? Would it not be fair for his Department to refund to the local authority the cost of borrowing money which is solely attributable to Treasury delays?

I have every reason to expect that these valuations will be complete and the alterations made in the valuation list in time to ensure that the local authority does not lose revenue in the current rating year.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, my second question has not been answered at all. Many of these premises have been in rateable occupation since June. Is the Minister not aware that the local authority has had to expend money which it has had to borrow at 5½ per cent.? Will he not look at the possibility of making a refund?

It is always the case that there is a time-lag in the downward and the upward adjustment of valuations as a result of proposals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to enable persons who took advantage of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1956, and paid premiums during that year in respect of annuities, to make the appropriate deduction from Income Tax payments demanded from them on 1st January this year.

Where retirement annuity relief has been duly claimed and the relief is due, the assessment will be reduced, or tax repaid, as the case may be. It is hoped, however, that all adjustments, arising out of premiums paid during 1956 will have been made before the second instalment of tax for 1956–57 falls due on 1st July, 1957.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a shortage of forms for these claims? At the same time, may I assure him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the professional classes—

The hon. Member must not use this occasion in order to give assurances. He must ask a question.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that the professional classes are very grateful to the Conservative Government for bringing in this scheme in the face of Socialist opposition?

I am well aware of that, and I will look into the matter of the forms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the £ sterling has fallen since 1951.

The internal purchasing power of the £ has fallen by 3s. 10½d. since 1951. This estimate is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index between 1951 and 1955 brought up to date by reference to the Index of Retail Prices.

Since this fact is mentioned in the latest Labour Party leaflets, but not the fact that during Socialist rule the £ fell by 5s. 9d., will my right hon. Friend suggest to the leaders of the Socialist Party that they include both facts in future leaflets, as I am sure that they want to be fair?

I have no doubt at all that they have noticed my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Since the whole country, if not the hon. Gentleman, is aware that the cost of living under the Labour Government changed far less than the increase in world prices and far more under the Conservative Government, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Answer which he has given is brought to the attention of the voters of Lewisham?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total value of the sales of raw materials and other goods out of Government strategic stocks during 1955 and 1956, respectively.

Receipts by the Board of Trade from net sales of raw material stocks were about £1 million in 1955–56 and about £25 million in the first nine months of the current financial year.

The corresponding figures for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are some £6½ million in the last nine months. There were no net sales in 1955–56.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance about Question No. 36? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been answered."] I understand that it was answered in conjunction with Question No. 20, which referred only to Canadian dollars and not to United States dollars. Would it not be right for an answer to be given to the American part of the Question as well as to the Canadian part?

I could not allow that now. Had the hon. Member been here, he could have asked a supplementary question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the purchasing value of the average industrial wage between April, 1945, and April, 1951, and between April, 1951, and April, 1956.

Between July, 1945, and April, 1951, the average earnings of adult male wage-earners increased by 32 per cent.; during the same period the index of prices of consumer goods and services rose by about 33 per cent.

Between April, 1951, and April, 1956, average earnings rose 13 per cent. more than the Index of Retail Prices.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Members in all parts of the House will, I am sure, welcome this evidence of the increase in the acceleration of the rate of purchasing power of the industrial wage which has taken place under the Conservative Administration?

Is the Minister also aware that when he gave that figure, a considerable amount of it was based not upon the standard working week, but upon the amount of overtime that people have put in?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that whoever has or has not benefited, the net result is a very sorry story for the British economy? Is he also aware that people on fixed incomes suffer, however much the increased purchasing power of wages, with or without overtime, benefits those who receive them?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average industrial wage today; and what wage would be required by a married man with two children to give the same purchasing value as the average industrial wage in 1938.

The average earnings of an adult male wage-earner in April, 1956, in the industries covered by the Ministry of Labour's earnings inquiries, were 235s. 4d. The corresponding figure in October, 1938, was 69s. and the increase since then in the prices of consumer goods and services is estimated at 168 per cent. The average earnings of 1938 may thus be estimated to have the same purchasing power as 185s. in April, 1956.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this advantage of the improved purchasing power of the wage of the industrial worker is not shared by any similar increase in the standard of living and the standard of the purchasing power of the professional and executive classes? Is it not the knowledge of this fact which is encouraging so many of our more able young men to emigrate?

I think that there is force in what my hon. Friend says, but, of course, it does represent a considerable increase in the standard of living of workers in comparison with before the war. No doubt, hon. Members opposite will use that in all their propaganda.

While accepting the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is not aware, first, that this shows what a miserably inadequate level wages were at in 1938—

After six years of Socialism.

—after about 20 years of Toryism—and since the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend think that these movements of wage rates are good Tory propaganda, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Government published a White Paper last February saying that wages were rising too fast and should be kept within bounds, and why the present Prime Minister made the same appeal in his "plateau" speech at Newcastle last May?

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that all Governments have said that rises in wages must be related to rises in productivity and that if they get outside that rate it is very damaging. So far as before the war is concerned, we had a personal assurance that the right hon. Gentleman could at any rate afford boots when he was at school.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated annual cost of the increase in the incomes of industrial workers during the last five years for which statistics are available.

As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [Interruption.]

On a point of order. I could not hear that reply, Mr. Speaker.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make that smart reply, may I remind him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

It is not really a point of order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask a supplementary question on the Question that we have now passed. It is not a point of order, but if he can put it as a point of order, I will listen to him.

That was not the purpose of my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman wishes to score a cheap point by misrepresenting what I said, may I ask whether he is aware that I never said anything of the kind, and that the only—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a personal explanation of this matter.

Since this is based on a misrepresentation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the only Tory paper that attributed that remark to me has since apologised and agreed that I never made it?

Withdraw.

Resign.

Points of order are addressed to me and not to the Minister. I thought it was right that the matter should be cleared up. Mr. Henry Price.

Further to that point of order. As we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, and as we are getting such thoroughly cheap and unsatisfactory replies from his assistants, could we have replies from the Chancellor?

Mr. Henry Price. Question No. 43.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was so much row going on that there was no chance of asking a supplementary question. I wondered, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether you were going to call anybody to ask a supplementary question and, if so, whether you could kindly call on me.

I should be delighted to do so, but I am afraid that I have passed that stage.

On a point of order. Is there any means of stopping points of order being abused by Front Bench Members on the other side of the House?

I suffer from points of order not only from the Front Bench above the gangway, but from that below it too, sometimes. Mr. Henry Price, Question No. 43.

I have not yet asked a supplementary on Question No. 42.

I am afraid I have lost count. Will the hon. Member please ask Question No. 43?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fall in the Treasury Bill rate he will make a statement about his policy in relation to the Bank Rate.

As the House is doubtless aware, the Bank of England has today announced a reduction in the Bank Rate of ½ per cent. It would be wrong to interpret the move from the 5½ per cent. to a 5 per cent. Bank Rate as a change in economic policy. This is not a signal for bankers or others controlling sources of finance to relax credit or to ease restrictions on lending.

Today's reduction in the very high rate which has prevailed for the last twelve months, is designed to enable the Bank of England to maintain the full effectiveness of monetary policy. I am assured that its control will not be weakened by this move.

I must emphasise to the House that there is no change in the need to restrain both public and private spending and lending in order to make room for exports and essential investment. As long as these are our economic objectives, we intend to continue to make full use of interest rates to discourage spending and encourage savings. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 5th June last, it is necessary that our monetary policy should remain flexible and the Bank Rate will be varied as circumstances require.

While thanking the Chancellor for that Answer, may I ask whether he will allow me, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate him on having taken this decision, in view of the fact that the Bank Rate last went up on 16th February last year, the day after the Taunton by-election and has been reduced this year the Thursday before the North Lewisham by-election? That having been done, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what additional deductions we must draw from his statement, apart from those which he has given the House, for which we thank him?

Are we to take it from this Answer that the Chancellor now assumes, in view of the reasons given by the Prime Minister a year ago for the increase in the Bank Rate, that the gold reserves are in such a position that they no longer need the protection of the Bank Rate? Are we to assume—and these are very important questions—that the Chancellor now wants an increase in investment which the Government were trying to discourage, or that he does not?

Finally are we to assume that the right hon. Gentleman now accepts the argument, which we on this side of the House have put over a period of years, that he can have an effective monetary policy without necessarily having very high interest rates?

All that the right hon. Gentleman need assume from my Answer is that this is not the time to let up and that this move is simply designed to maintain an effective monetary policy.

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how a reduction in Bank Rate enables the Bank of England to have a tighter control over the credit situation?

I do not want to get into a technical discussion, particularly with the right hon. Gentleman. All I would say is that the effective use of monetary policy is concerned not only with the Bank Rate but with the market operations associated with it.

Does not this important change signify growing confidence in the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government?

Certainly we have full confidence in the policies of Her Majesty's Government, but I want to emphasise that this change in Bank Rate is not a signal that there is no need for restraint. That need will remain.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to market operations, does he mean that the purpose of this change is to enable the Treasury to borrow or reborrow more cheaply than otherwise it would have done?

I do not wish to add any comment to what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of full-time students taking courses in technology in the University of Wales in 1947–48, 1949–50, 1953–54, and 1954–55, respectively; and whether he will make a statement.

I am informed that the number for the four years in question were 507, 489, 360 and 380, respectively, but that by 1956–57 they had risen to 477, which represents an increase since 1953–54 of 32 per cent. in Wales as against an average of 23 per cent. in Great Britain.

Can the Minister give an assurance that he will give full assistance to the university in seeking to increase this number?

Of course, the distribution of grant as between universities is a matter which is left primarily to the University Grants Committee, but I am sure that it has that matter well in mind.

May I ask the Financial Secretary whether the Government know the cause of this rather terrible drop in numbers?

Yes, Sir. I am told that the fall between 1947 and 1953 was the automatic result of the extra numbers of ex-Service men in the years immediately after the war passing out of the universities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the commencing salary of a higher executive officer in 1939; what this salary would need to be today to compensate for increases in the cost of living and higher taxation; and the commencing salary of this grade today.

The commencing salary of a higher executive officer was £550 in 1939. For a married man with one child, the equivalent salary today to compensate for increases in the cost of living and higher taxation would be £1,733. The commencing salary of this grade is now £1,055.

Is it not clear that this represents a deterioration in the standard of living of about 40 per cent.? How is this process to be ended?

Answer.

Yes, it is clear.

As we have the Chancellor and the Prime Minister here, may I ask whether they will relate that reply to the position of the salaries of Members of Parliament, who are suffering a steady deterioration in their standard of life and many of whom, moreover, are now unable to perform their duties as they should be performed because of the lack of proper remuneration? Now that we have had a clean sweep in the Chancellorship and the Prime Ministership, can this matter be reviewed again?

That appears to relate to an entirely different matter.