asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety of the British motor car industry that it will find itself at a disadvantage in the European free market, so long as the burden of Purchase Tax on British motor cars is substantially higher than that of our principal European competitors; and whether he will arrange for this matter to be closely examined in consultation with representatives of the British motor car industry before any final decisions are made with regard to the European Free Trade Area.

Purchase Tax is only one among many factors which must be taken into account. My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider carefully any representations the industry may make.

Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to the important statement made by Sir Leonard Lord, the chairman and joint managing director of Britain's largest motor manufacturers, the British Motor Corporation? Only forty-eight hours ago that gentleman said:

"The Government's policies which affect home sales through credit restrictions, Purchase Tax, Profits Taxes, hire-purchase and other control's must be revised to give us parity of home market conditions with those of our Continental competitors. It must make trade free to meet Free Trade."

Is not this a most important pronouncement, and will my right hon. Friend have urgent regard to the advice of an expert?

The statement to which by hon. Friend's attention has been directed does show that Purchase Tax is, as I said, one of many factors that have to be considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present approximate net yield, respectively, in respect of Purchase Tax on motor cars and commercial vehicle chassis.

It is £94 million and £12½ million respectively for the twelve months to 30th September, 1957.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the commercial vehicles' chassis is the only case of the Purchase Tax being made applicable to industrial capital goods? Would it not be just about as sensible to impose the Purchase Tax on a railway locomotive or a railway wagon—or a freighter aircraft—as it is ridiculous to put it on the chassis of a goods vehicle on our roads?

May I have an answer?

Could the Financial Secretary say how the figure of yield of Purchase Tax on motor cars compares with the loss to the Exchequer as a result of motor cars ranking as a business expenditure?

Not without notice.

May I have an answer to my supplementary now, Mr. Speaker?

I cannot make a Minister answer if he does not want to.

A jolly bad show, all the same.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present high rate of Purchase Tax imposed on certain manufacturers' produce is a specially difficult problem for small manufacturers who frequently find themselves obliged to finance the payment of the tax for a long period out of their own resources, and that the recent increase in the Bank Rate has materially increased these difficulties; and to what extent his present review of the Purchase Tax will include this matter.

No, Sir. Registered traders receive from the Crown credit for a period which, on average, roughly equals that of the credit which they give to their customers.

Yes, Sir, but is this period to be regarded as inflexible? Is it not the fact that the same period has related to this matter ever since the Purchase Tax was introduced? Having regard to the conditions to which I draw attention in this Question, namely, the high Bank Rate, and other economic and financial conditions—and the Government's policy, in broad principle, is correct, of course—would it not be desirable in the present circumstances to try to help the small manufacturer?

I have seen no evidence to suggest that the level of Bank Rate has caused any hardship in this respect.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since his last appeal to companies for dividend restraint a number of public companies, particularly those in oil, steel, brewery and property undertakings, have increased dividends; and whether he will issue a further appeal for dividend restraint or take legislative action to enforce dividend restraint.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir", and to the second part "No, Sir".

What action do the Government propose to take in view of the appeals various Ministers are always making to the trade unions? Will not the Government take some action, in particular to restrain property companies who are doubling rents and, many of them, doubling dividends? Is that not inflationary?

The general policy of the Government has frequently been explained, and it is to make profits harder to earn.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special steps he has taken to bring to the notice of steel companies his appeal to exercise restraint in the distribution of dividends.

My right hon. Friend has taken no special steps for this purpose.

In view of the special steps taken to restrain the National Health Service workers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it makes a mockery of appeals for wages restraint when these distributions of dividends take place? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what extra effort these people have made over that of the holders of the 3½ per cent. steel stock in the days when it was publicly owned?

As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, the distribution policy of the steel companies has been quite exceptionally conservative. In the last five years 80 per cent. of capital development has been financed out of income.

Is it in accordance or not with Government policy that there should have been this rise in steel dividends in the last few months?

Government policy is a policy of restraint, not of freezing.

Does the Economic Secretary consider that the denationalised steel firms are carrying out Government policy in that respect?

I do not think that anything at all improper has been done.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government have not exercised their right to take up shares in the recent issue of British Petroleum.

It would have been contrary to the intention of the measures my right hon. Friend announced on 19th September for the Exchequer to have injected new money into the market.

I do not know about the business of injecting new money into the market, or about the business of "stagging" new issues, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last week, both of which remind one of conversations on the grouse moors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would the Economic Secretary tell us whether he really thinks this sort of fairground method of raising money really does meet the needs of one of the major industries of this country?

I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman refers to as a fairground method of raising money. This money was raised in the way every other issue is raised.

Have not the Government lost between £1 million and £2 million of public money already by not taking up those shares?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what extent Her Majesty's Government as majority shareholder was consulted as to the terms of the British Petroleum issue;

(2) to whom the underwriting and sub-underwriting of the British Petroleum issue was allocated; what was the cost of the underwriting; and to what extent, as majority shareholder, Her Majesty's Government was consulted as to the allocation or the cost.

Her Majesty's Government were told in advance what form the new issue would take but its terms and the underwriting arrangements were the responsibility of the company.

Is not that very regrettable? What are the Government going to do about it? It is fairly clear from the result of the market that they paid over £2 million too much for their money, that £1 million of this wasted money falls on us, and that they also wasted £750,000 by a hand-out to the underwriters? Are they satisfied with that position?

The issue was twenty times over-subscribed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not always entirely possible to predict in advance the result of issues. The price of this issue, with which we had nothing to do, was fixed a long time in advance. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, in quite a number of recent cases there have been large losses by the underwriters. It was their duty to get the best terms they could, and I have no doubt they did so.

It has never been quite as bad as this.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reinforce the control of capital movements to non-sterling countries and introduce controls on capital movements to the sterling area.

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, since the Government relaxed controls, the balance of trade surpluses earned by this country have been cancelled out year after year by capital movements, mostly of a fugitive or speculative nature? Has not the time come for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to overcome his party mania and face the situation squarely?

I think the experience of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were in office showed that the £ cannot be protected simply by controls of that sort. It is the general confidence in the policy of the Government which holds it up. The only thing we have done recently on exchange control has been to close the Kuwait gap. There has been no basic change.

Are there not a Hong Kong gap and a Tangier gap through which large amounts of capital escape?

There is a Question later on the Paper about that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the effects of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate, he will take steps to improve forthwith the terms of National Savings.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) on 19th November.

Without wishing to tempt the hon. Gentleman to indulge in any kind of leak, may I ask him whether he agrees that the only two alternatives are a serious deterioration in National Savings or a lowering of the Bank Rate?

As my right hon. Friend said on that occasion,

"I do not think it would help at all if I were to forecast changes in the terms of National Savings…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 154.]

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his latest estimate, taking into account reduced attendances at cinemas, of the cost in a full year of the recent reduction in entertainments tax on cinemas and of the total abolition of the tax, respectively.

It is not the practice to give estimates of the out-turn of taxes before the end of the financial year.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into this question to see what is happening? Is he aware that already in the first six months of this financial year another 100 cinemas have been closed and that the reduction in Entertainments Duty on cinemas has done nothing to arrest that decline? Will he, therefore, consider very seriously the abolition of that tax in the near future?

That is a question for the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been collected from Entertainments Duty on cinema admissions for this year to the nearest convenient date; and what was the amount for last year over the same period.

£26·7 million and £32·1 million in the eleven months ended 30th November in 1957 and 1956 respectively.

If I have followed them correctly, I take it that the figures given represent a fall for this year up to date. Is the Financial Secretary aware that at the same time the admissions to cinemas up to date represent a figure so low that it has not been equalled in the last 20 years? Does he realise that the policy that is being pursued in connection with the cinema industry will rapidly drive the exhibitor out of business and also affect production and make us still more dependent on American film production? Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve? If not, will he say what he proposes to do about it?

Answer.

Order. Mr. Powell.

rose—

If not the Minister, then Mr. Collins—Question No. 13.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to make it a condition of membership of the Court of Governors of the Bank of England that other directorships and appointments must be relinquished.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will take steps to abolish the posts of part-time directors of the Bank of England;

(2) what inquiries have been made into the volume of gilt edge transactions on the occasion of previous increases in the Bank Rate during the period of office of the present Government.

I will, with permission, answer Question No. 11 and Questions No. 17 and 27 together.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 12th December.

On a point of order. Question No. 27 has nothing to do with the other two Questions. It is a quite different Question. Why is it answered with the others?

The Answer is relevant to it, too.

Further to that point of order. The mere fact that the Economic Secretary thinks that it is relevant is no reason why it should be answered with the other Questions, which are quite distinctive.

Perhaps we may hear a supplementary question on the matter.

On a point of order. Is it in order for right hon. and hon. Members on either side to put down Questions about matters which are sub judice at the present time in the context of the Tribunal which is still continuing its bearings this day?

The Question on the Paper is in order because it does not directly concern the proceedings of the Tribunal, but I can foresee that supplementary questions could invade that sphere. I hope they will not. I am waiting to see what happens.

Questions Nos. 11 and 17 by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and me refer to the appointment of part-time directors of the Bank of England, but Question No. 27 refers to a quite different matter. If you will look at the Question, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree. It has nothing to do with the two previous Questions.

If time permits I will call the right hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question.

Is it in order for a Minister to answer several Questions together when a Member concerned has not given his consent to his Question being answered with another?

The Answer which the Economic Secretary gave referred to a previous Answer. As I do not recollect it, I cannot say whether it is in order or not.

On Question No. 17 I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Economic Secretary whether it is in any way sub judice. It is a question for Parliament to decide. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that overwhelming opinion in the country, and Parliamentary opinion, should be tested on whether men should be put in a position where there is a clear conflict between their public duties and their commercial activities? Cannot we have an answer from the Government on that question, which is sub judice only in Parliament itself?

The system under which the Bank of England now works was that brought in by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they nationalised the Bank of England. It is the system which they laid down. I think very careful consideration needs to be given before it is altered. There can be no discussion of its merits until we have the Report of the Tribunal.

On Question No. 17—I am reserving my right to put a supplementary on Question No. 27, which is a different Question—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not agree that to have directors associated with the Court of Governors whose firms are engaged regularly in gilt-edged transactions is bound to prove a source of embarrassment to the Bank of England and the firms concerned?

This system has continued since 1685, not altogether without success.

Will my right hon. Friend resist suggestions for the introduction of legislation until we have the full Report and do nothing in panic even then?

That is what I said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was 1694? Will he look at this question seriously, because, whatever its merits, it is obvious that strong opinions are held about it?

Of course the question will be considered seriously.

May I put a supplementary question to the Economic Secretary on Question No. 27? Is he aware that Lord Justice Parker, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning, himself referred to the desirability of obtaining further information about gilt-edged transactions conducted by certain firms in the City of London previous to 1957, and that he mentioned the year 1951? In view of his Lordship's request for information, is it not desirable that the Government—

On a point of order. Have you not previously ruled on this matter, Mr. Speaker, that no reference can be made at Question Time or in debate in the House to the current inquiry procedings at Church House?

I think that previous questions were in order. They could be considered without reference to the Tribunal, though I think that the right hon. Member for Easington. (Mr. Shinwell), if he reflects, will understand the disadvantage of quoting in the middle of a case the sayings of a judge when the case has not yet been decided. We ought to wait until we have the full Report.

I put a Question on the Order Paper asking whether the Government would institute an inquiry. His Lordship, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning—and this is reported in the Press this afternoon—requested information on this precise subject. Therefore, am I not entitled to follow the statement made by his Lordship by asking a supplementary question in order to ascertain the Government's views?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that, but this is getting very dangerous and I do not know where further questions may lead us. It is a fact that this whole troublesome episode has been sent by the House to the Tribunal to hear and inquire into, and I think that on general principles it is best to avoid anything until the Tribunal has had an opportunity to hear all the evidence and express a final opinion. I think that would be the wisest course.

May I ask the Economic Secretary, in reply to my original Question No. 27, whether the Government will institute an inquiry into this matter?

The Government will supply any figures which the Tribunal thinks are relevant, and they have already supplied them. It seems to me that it really is not up to us or to the right hon. Gentleman to instruct the Tribunal on what is relevant.

On a point of order. Are we not in the difficulty that under this rather peculiar procedure the Government are the accused and have the conduct of the proceedings against themselves? Surely, therefore, cannot we as an Opposition require the Government in their capacity as the people who have the conduct of the proceedings to bring certain evidence to the notice of the House?

I do not think that the form of the inquiry or the Resolution passed by the House puts anybody in the position of being accused. The Tribunal has been asked to make an inquiry into the whole matter. Anyhow, if the Government were the accused in this matter, which I do not admit, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) knows that when a man is accused he is entitled to receive a fair trial, without any intervention by the House which might prejudice it. I hope, therefore, that he will let this matter go.

But is that so when the accused are also conducting the prosecution?

It is not a prosecution at all. It is an inquiry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Commissioners of Income Tax have the right to vary assessments within a period of six years from the year of assessment, whereas the taxpayer has only 21 days in which to appeal; and, as this frequently leads to hardship, if he will amend the Regulations so as to give the taxpayer a right of appeal not less favourable than that enjoyed by the Commissioners.

There is no relationship between the time limit for appeals and that for assessments.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that these assessments often call for a much bigger amount than the amount that is actually due and that they arrive at the busiest time of the year for small concerns? Is he aware that the result is that these small concerns have no time to attend to the matter and that when they appeal it is too late? In common justice, will not the hon. Gentleman extend the time for appeal so that the Government do not claim money to which they are not entitled?

All that the taxpayer has to do is to decide within 21 days whether or not he wishes to appeal. He has to do no more, and it is to the interest of the taxpayer and the Government that the point should be settled at the earliest possible moment.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that very often in those 21 days there is no time to attend to the matter? Does he not realise that in the case of the Surtax payer the Special Commissioners inform the taxpayer's adviser of the assessment? Why should there be this discrimination? There is a real difficulty here. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

There is no discrimination. In many cases the taxpayer also has a right to claim relief or repayment, up to six years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria guide him in his selection of national newspapers to whom advance disclosure of statements of policy shall be made; and for what reason other national newspapers are excluded from such conferences.

My right hon. Friend is guided in the circumstances of each case by his judgment of the national interest.

Is the Minister aware that in the recent case the judgment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a reflection on the integrity of the excluded newspapers? Will the hon. Gentleman say why papers like the Daily Express, the Daily Herald, the Daily Mail and the Mirror were excluded—papers with circulations four times that of the privileged few and read by nine out of ten people in the country? Does he not wish all the people to be informed of the Government's policy, or does he want it to be kept dark? Will he approach his right hon. Friend for an assurance that in future statements of this kind will be made to the Press as a whole and not to the privileged few?

I intend to make no reference to a matter which is directly or indirectly sub judice.

On a point of order. I submit that this Question has no relationship whatsoever to the matter which is now under consideration, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement to which I have referred, made no reference whatever to the Bank Rate. This cannot possibly be sub judice.

It is a matter on which the Minister seems to take a different view.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in HANSARD statistics in regard to variations in output per man-hour of different portions of the working population over the past twelve months.

No, Sir. There are no official statistics from which variations in output per man-hour over the past twelve months can be calculated.

In that event, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain to the House how the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said a few weeks ago in Birmingham that 50 per cent. of the working class of the country were not pulling their weight? If, as is obvious, there were no statistics on which that statement can be made, should not stupid statements and generalisations of this sort by members of the Government cease?

That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Question. I really do not think that it is very helpful of the hon. Member.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that the payments to Government employees for the use of their private cars on official business, at authorised users' rates, are in fact restricted to journeys for which public transport is not available; whether he is satisfied that the rates of payment are not excessive; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the relevant rules in Estacode of which I am sending him a copy. The rates of payment are at present under discussion with the Staff Side.

Does my hon. Friend not think that a rate of 9¼d. a mile is rather high for the use of private cars for Government purposes? Is he aware, for example, that there are about 5,000 authorised users in the Post Office who receive £100 a year each on an average for the use of their cars? Does he not think that there is the possibility here of discovering means of Government economies in expenditure?

As I told my hon. Friend, there matters are under discussion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received with respect to gaps in the exchange control which have arisen since July through Hong Kong and Tangier; and if he will make investigations to see what action is necessary.

While no system of exchange control can be completely effective, particularly in view of our position as bankers to the Sterling Area, I have no information that any gaps through Hong Kong and Tangier have arisen since July.

As we now know that there were huge losses of gold through the Kuwait gap, which went on for at least two years, will the Economic Secretary look into this matter throughly, in good time, so that if this kind of thing is going on, it can be stopped?

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, since he was in the Treasury, Hong Kong is a difficult case. It is a big entrepôt area, and so on. We are trying constantly to improve our controls but it is not easy to get watertight ones.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost to date of the Tribunal inquiring into the alleged Bank Rate leak.

About £5,000.

Can the Minister inform the House whether any estimate has been made of the ultimate cost, and would he agree with hon. Members on this side of the House that, whatever that might be, it has been very well worth while?

May I ask the Minister whether, in the event of it being discovered that some members of the Government were at fault, they will be surcharged for this expenditure?

Answer.

Order. That question is quite hypothetical. Mr. Hamilton.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that between October and November the prices of raw wool, raw cotton, raw rubber, lead, imported steel scrap, hides and skins, and zinc fell by 5·2 per cent., 4·4 per cent., 7·9 per cent., 3·2 per cent., 7·6 per cent., 1·5 per cent., and 2·4 per cent. respectively; and whether he will now indicate how far these figures have been reflected in the retail price index.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that, since his last appeal to manufacturers to reduce prices, there has been a further fall in import prices and, notwithstanding a 1·7 per cent. fall in the wholesale price of basic materials between October and November, there has been no corresponding reduction in retail prices; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that these falling prices are passed on to the consumer;

(2) if he is aware that, whilst almost all types of imports have fallen in price during the past few months, particularly raw materials, the lower prices have been particularly marked with regard to raw wool, raw cotton, raw rubber, lead, imported steel scrap, hides and skins and zinc; whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the industries which use these raw materials for manufactured goods to ascertain why these lower raw material prices have not been passed on in lower prices for the completed manufactured goods; and whether he will consider a special profits tax in his forthcoming budget on these types of industries and manufacturers.

I have nothing to add to my reply of 12th December to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). In regard to the last point in Question No. 24 I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Manufacturers has bluntly rejected the appeal of the Chancellor for stabilising prices, much less falling prices, and, indeed, has said in blunt terms that it is no good appealing to its feeling of patriotism on this matter? If it cannot be appealed to on this ground, is he prepared to take more courageous action?

If I remember aright, it said it thought that it was premature. Of course, it takes time for falls in import prices to work their way through the system, and home costs are four or five times as important as import costs in the final price of the article.

If the Minister says it takes time for falls to work through the system, can he say when this is likely to happen, because we have had this Government since 1951, prices have been falling ever since—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—world import prices have been dropping ever since 1951; I am glad to hear that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree—and yet at home we have reached the highest cost of living ever. Can we be assured that at some time, if not in the next few months or years, the Government will implement their promise?

Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great hardship that arises in a large number of individual cases of elderly persons having no other means, he will now make general provision for the earlier repayment of Post-war Credits.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is great concern about this? The value of Post-war Credits is diminishing, and an increasing number of elderly people without other means, often in ill health, are suffering great hardship because they cannot get these Post-war Credits repaid?

This is a question which it will fall to my right hon. Friend to consider in making his Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Great Britain is the only one, among the major industrial nations, where there are no specialised technological institutions able to award their own degrees, and that this contributes to the shortage in our output of graduate engineers and scientists; and what steps he proposes to take to increase the yearly number of graduates.

It is the Government's view that the best results will be got by specially developing the scientific and technological side of certain existing institutions.

Yes, but is not the financial Secretary aware that at present the universities for the most part concentrate on the arts side, and that nearly three-quarters of the graduates in British universities are on that side, and that this injures or affects the status and the stature of technological institutes and puts them on a lower level? Would not he reconsider the matter?

In the last two years there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering science and technology courses. I should have thought that this was pretty good.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the Government's intentions on the American and Canadian loan payments due at the end of this month.

I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), on 17th December.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making optimistic speeches about the economic situation in the last week or two, is the Economic Secretary really satisfied that the dollar situation is so bad that we cannot make payments which were made even in 1955 and 1951? If it is as bad as this, should we not be taking some constructive action to improve the position?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. Under the loan agreements, as re-negotiated, we have the right to have seven bisques, as they are called, when we can postpone the repayment of the loan and pay the amounts at the end of the period. It seemed, in all the circumstances, that this was a reasonable year to do so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the taxation advantages open to inventors in other countries; whether he is satisfied that British industry is not, in consequence, losing the benefit of inventions which have been initiated in this country and later developed overseas; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend will gladly study any evidence on this subject which my hon. Friend cares to send him.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are the only civilised country where the sales of patents are subject to tax? Is he also aware that the normal Income Tax regulations bear particularly hardly on a man who has spent some years developing a patent, and then receives his reward for it over a very short time? Does he appreciate that when his right hon. Friend spoke during the last Budget speech of room at the top, it was hoped that some small part of it might be reserved for inventors and patentees, on whom the future of industry in this country so much depends? Will he look into this question in the light of those facts?

Certainly, Sir, but as the tax is the same whether the patent is sold in this country or abroad, it can hardly have the effect that the results of British invention are sold overseas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the composition and terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the fishing industry which, on 15th July, 1957, he announced it was his intention to set up; and when it will begin its sittings.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on 25th November. The Committee held its first meeting yesterday.

Will the Minister say whether every phase of the fishing industry will be invited to give evidence before the Committee, so that it may achieve its utmost utility, and will its sittings be held in public?

The Committee will ask for the widest possible representations from all the people concerned. Its terms of reference are very wide indeed.

Is it not true that all the relevant facts about the fishing industry are already well known? What new facts does the Committee expect to elicit?

I would not accept that all the facts are known. I think that this distinguished Committee should produce a very interesting report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed plan of the Milk Marketing Board to import Charollais bulls into this country; and what action he proposes to take.

The National Cattle Breeders' Association was invited to comment on this proposal and its views are now being studied. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to say what action will be taken.

Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that he persuades his right hon. Friend to resist this attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to restrict the freedom of the farmer?

Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been any representations on the subject from any of the other breed societies?

My right hon. Friend is receiving comments from various people. He has by no means made up his mind yet. I do not think I can add anything more at the moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the success of the colour marking scheme pursued with his Department's approval at artificial insemination stations; and whether he will make a statement.

The scheme for providing inseminations free or at a reduced cost from colour marking bulls ended in 1951. It is not now the policy of my Department to advocate the use of colour marking bulls exclusively when suitable bulls of other beef breeds are available.

Would my hon. Friend give even further encouragement to the use of Scottish cattle, especially Shorthorns, and other indigenous breeds such as Lincoln Reds, Dublins, and so forth?

I will certainly support Lincoln Reds, representing the county I do, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the only beef Shorthorn bull standing at an A.I. centre at the moment is at the Ministry's own centre at Reading.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent Her Majesty's Government propose to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds.

In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend intends to enter into discussions shortly on the Committee's recommendations with representatives of the interests concerned. An announcement as to the Government's proposals on the Report will be made in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is it possible for him to give any indication as to when a conclusion in this matter might be reached, and whether any action is contemplated thereafter?

It is a little early as yet. This is a very long and detailed Report, and it makes no fewer than 107 separate recommendations. It was published only on 21st November. I do not: think that we can at this stage make any useful statement about the future. Naturally, we are hoping to be able to make some progress in the matter in due course.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are made by the British Government inspectors in the countries of origin to ensure that meat exported to the United Kingdom is inspected to detect whether it is infected with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease; if he is satisfied that the spread of infection is prevented in the United Kingdom by these arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very substantial concern felt among farmers in this country who believe that foot-and-mouth disease is spread by the import of infected meat? Is it possible for him to arrange for a full scientific inquiry into the matter; or, if he should feel that his Department already has all the scientific information it needs, would he arrange for it to be published in order to allay public anxiety?

If my hon. Friend will read the reply when it appears, he will find the matter is set out in some considerable detail. I assure him that we keep the very closest watch on the problem of imported meat, and we receive very considerable co-operation, in particular from the South American countries from which some of the meat comes.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether we have made any progress with the draft convention on foot-and-mouth disease which, I think, was prepared by the French Government?

That is somewhat beyond the terms of the Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will appoint a committee to give him interim advice on the working of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is awaiting the outcome of the examination to which I referred on 2nd December.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are all fed up with this deadlock and want it broken, and that this is a reasonable suggestion to give him a means of breaking it? We want something done.

I have heard the hon. Member criticise committees at some length. I am rather interested to know that he now wants one set up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he received representations from the Farmers and Smallholders Association urging the total repeal of the disciplinary provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947; and what form the representations took.

This Association sent a deputation in November, 1952, to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, urging repeal of the power of dispossession and gave written and oral evidence urging total repeal to the Wilson Committee in 1955. On several occasions over the last few years the Association have protested against the use of the powers in Part II of the Act in individual cases.

Does the hon. Member now realise that to rely upon representations made in 1952 is a very flimsy pretext for upsetting the whole industry and that the sooner he pays attention to the responsible views of the industry, both farmers and farmworkers, the better? Will he assure the House that the Government will not proceed with the repeal of Part II?

If the hon. Gentleman had paid attention to what I said on the last occasion, he would have realised that I made it abundantly clear that we were not resting our case on those representations. We rest our case on sound, practical reasons which we shall be happy to explain to the House in due course.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how many members of the Association, so-called, had previously been dispossessed for bad husbandry?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of poisoning have been notified in those engaged in agricultural spraying with sodium and potassium arsenite in the last five years; and in how many cases spraying with these substances has been regarded as a causative agent in cases of dermatitis and cancer.

My right hon. Friend is aware of one case of a person taken ill after being engaged in spraying with alkaline arsenites; and of one occurrence in which arsenical poisoning was diagnosed in seven persons who had picked potatoes very shortly after the haulm had been sprayed with arsenites. He knows of no cases in which spraying with these substances has been regarded as a causative agent of dermatitis or cancer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable evidence that those working with arsenic in various forms are more liable to cancer than the normal population? Will he ensure that, as far as is possible, careful records are kept in his Department of those using these sprays in case they suffer similarly from cancer or eczema?

I would point out that in agriculture these substances are used in the open air, and, therefore, the same concentrations are not involved. We have laid down very strict rules about the clothing that has to be worn. We will naturally keep a very close watch on the position.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long after the spraying of the haulms of the potato plant with arsenical compounds this element has been detected in the soil; and how far arsenic or its compounds are known to have been absorbed by the potato plant, and deposited in the tuber.

My right hon. Friend has no information on the first part of the Question. As regards the last part, potato plants, like all plants, may absorb arsenic in minute quantities and some tubers of potato crops sprayed with arsenical haulm-killers have been found to contain arsenic, nearly always in the peel only, but in quantities below the limit recommended by the Food Standards Committee.

Does the arsenic which has been found, as the hon. Gentleman agrees, in the peel of the potato arise from the soil, or is it arsenic absorbed by the plant and then re-deposited on the surface of the tuber?

There is generally a certain very small amount of arsenic found in ordinary potatoes where no spraying or anything of the sort has taken place. It is a very small quantity, amounting to about 0·1 parts per million. The amount has been slightly higher where spraying has taken place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his intentions with regard to the present arrangements for rat destruction on farms.

The arrangements are under review in consultation with the interests concerned.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very considerable dismay which there would be in the farming community if this service also were to be withdrawn from the farmers?

In some counties it has been given up, but some counties are still carrying on. We are having very close consultations about the matter with all the interests concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider the case of the farmer living in South Worcestershire whose application for a grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme has been rejected because he applied for a grant in respect of a building only to be erected on existing foundations instead of a grant for both erection of the building and construction of the foundations.

I cannot agree that this application was rejected for the reason suggested in the Question. My right hon. Friend explained the reason fully in a letter which he sent to my hon. Friend on 20th November last, to which I regret I have nothing to add.

Have we not now arrived at the position where this farmer, if he chooses to submit an application for a grant to cover the cost of new foundations and of the new building to go upon them, will succeed in drawing a larger amount of public money than if the Ministry were to give him permission to erect the building on the existing foundations? Does not this point to the need for a more rational administration of this basically excellent farm improvement scheme?

There are two points here. The first is that my noble Friend made it abundantly clear on 30th January last that any work started would not qualify for grant, and that would rule out a case such as this. The other point is that any proposal under the Farm Improvement Scheme has first to be agreed with our technical officers who have to approve it as a correct development. They could not very well do so if the project had been started to such an extent as this one before an application was made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the farmer is prepared to submit an application to cover only the cost of a new building on the foundations which he already has?

I am aware of the facts of the case. I regret that we are unable to help. We must have very clear-cut rules at the outset of an important scheme of this nature. I am very sorry, but I am afraid that the case falls outside the scheme.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a date by which he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land.

My right hon. Friend understands that the Royal Commission on Common Land hopes to present its Report within about the next six months.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether, on the basis of figures available to him from his representatives on the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and from the Government's nominees on the Commonwealth Economic Committee, he will give the price per cwt. of first grade Australian butter in Sydney Market, Australia, and the prices of this Australian butter and of first grade United Kingdom butter at the London Provision Exchange at the latest convenient date;

(2) whether, on the basis of figures available to him from his representatives on the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and from the Government's nominees on the Commonwealth Economic Committee, he will give the prices per cwt. of Australian best white Cheddar type cheese in Sydney Market, Australia, and the prices of this Australian cheese and of United Kingdom cheddar cheese at the London Provision Exchange at the latest convenient date.

The prices for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks are quoted in the Intelligence Bulletin published by the Commonwealth Economic Committee, to which I would refer him.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Intelligence Bulletin to which he referred quotes only one grade of Australian butter which is not mentioned in the terms of my Question? Am I to understand him to mean that this Australian butter, on sale in Sydney at 466s. per cwt., is identical with the first-grade Australian butter quoted on the London Provision Exchange at 258s. a cwt.?

So far as I could hear that supplementary question, I think I should find myself in agreement with the figures my hon. and gallant Friend quoted.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider favourably the proposal for buffer stocks, mentioned in the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Report of June, 1956, as part of a global mechanism to help stabilise primary commodity prices.

The report in question analysed the possible uses of buffer stocks for this purpose, but made no definite proposals.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he regards the stabilisation of prices of primary commodities, particularly foodstuffs, as desirable; and what steps is he taking to secure that end?

The Government are interested in getting prices stabilised and perfectly willing to discuss that with other countries concerned, but we think that it has to be done on an individual commodity basis.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give supply figures, in the categories laid down by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, of the national food reserve of this country, and of the overseas Colonial Territories for which he is spokesman, to the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

The only food reserves in the ownership of Her Majesty's Government are strategic reserves about which it is not the practice to give information.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which districts myxomatosis has proved a killing disease in the past six months; and to what extent the reports received by his Department show that myxomatosis and the use of gas and other measures are preventing an increase in rabbit numbers generally.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the incidence of myxomatosis amongst wild rabbits.

During the past six months fairly widespread outbreaks of myxomatosis have occurred, and are still active, in Berkshire, Hampshire, Suffolk and Sussex. Isolated outbreaks have also occurred in about thirty other counties. In most outbreaks the disease has killed a high proportion of the rabbits, but myxomatosis in a weakened strain has now been found in widely scattered areas, and blood tests from samples of rabbits examined suggest that a fairly large proportion of the rabbit population may already be immune to myxomatosis. Reports received by my Ministry indicate generally that the rabbit population is increasing, although where active measures, by gas and otherwise, are being taken, rabbit numbers are being kept down. I should like to emphasise the great importance of occupiers doing everything in their power to destroy rabbits over the next two or three winter months.

May we take it that the new advisory council which was mentioned in another place the other day will give the country regular reports on the progress, or lack of progress, that we are making in dealing with the rabbit pest? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are often lulled into a sense of everything being all right when it is not all right? If we could have these reports they would be invaluable.

I should be only too glad to give the utmost publicity to this. I agree that it is important to give the fullest publicity to the question, and I hope that the farming community will continue to do all it can to deal with this pest.