asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of the capital investment in the Scottish paper trade in the last year and for the coming year.

I regret that this information is not available.

Has the Minister any direct or indirect evidence from the trade itself whether it regards the new Outer Seven trade agreement pessimistically or not, because my information is that it feels disinclined to invest any further money in the industry?

It is true that some Scottish paper and board makers have said that the threat of Scandinavian competition in the European Free Trade Association will oblige them to cut back their investment programmes. On the other hand, however, there are reports that makers of esparto and other special papers are still expending large sums on modernisation and rationalisation; and Wiggins Teape and three other United Kingdom paper makers are investigating the possibility of a new woodpulp mill near Fort William.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of grant given each year to the Children's Film Foundation.

No grant is made to the Children's Film Foundation Limited from public funds. Under the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, the British Film Fund Agency, with the approval of the Board of Trade, may make payments to the Children's Film Foundation Limited out of moneys realised from the levy imposed on cinema exhibitors for the benefit of British film production. In each of the last three years proposals for payments to the Children's Film Foundation Limited of sums amounting to £125,000 have been approved.

Does the Minister think it right that when a community association applies for a grant for a particular film to be shown it should be told that that film cannot be shown unless the agreement has been obtained of all the cinema exhibitors within a radius of three miles? Have the children to have only second-class films because the film exhibitors do not wish them to see the better-class films?

I am aware of the difficulty with regard to West Bromwich Community Centre, but the Foundation must operate commercially like any other part of the film industry. The booking manager tries to be as helpful as possible in suggesting alternative titles to films which are not available.

They are not available because the industry does not allow them to be shown.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that cotton yarn prices have increased over the past three months by over 1s. a pound, or about 15 per cent., whilst raw cotton prices are lower today than they were a year ago; and, since the £60,000,000 recently voted by Parliament for the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry was to increase efficiency and to reduce prices, if he will have the recent price increases investigated and make a statement.

I have looked into the increase to which my hon. Friend refers. Average United Kingdom prices of cotton yarn have increased by 8 per cent. since September, 1959, and 5 per cent. since December, 1958. Over the same periods, prices of raw cotton have increased by 6 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively. I do not propose therefore to take any action. I would add that, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained on 3rd December, the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the reorganisation and re-equipment of the cotton industry is £30 million, and not £60 million as stated in the Question.

Whilst I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the correction in the total figure, may I ask him whether, despite that, he does not think that the public is entitled to lower prices as a result of this huge subsidy given to the Lancashire cotton industry?

The subsidy is for the reorganisation of the cotton industry, and I would point out that yarn prices are lower now than they were two years ago.

Would the Minister remember that there is an outstanding wage claim by the persons employed in the Lancashire cotton industry, who are now recognised to have been some of the worst-paid of our skilled workers throughout industry, and that if these additional prices did provide some possibility of meeting this claim in full many of us on this side of the House would welcome it?

Has the Parliamentary Secretary no anxieties about the working of the Cotton Act? Has he carried out the promises he gave us before Christmas to inquire into the allegation that some firms are using the money obtained for scrapping machinery to start up again in the business?

That is another question.

the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need for lower retail prices, the Government will repeal Section 25 of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, which enables manufacturers to enforce their prices on retailers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider repealing that part of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, which enables manufacturers of proprietary goods to enforce price maintenance through the courts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to reduce prices, if he will introduce an amending Bill on the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, that will allow a manufacturer to sue a retailer only if he sells above the recommended retail price; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is studying the working of this part of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act, 1956, in order to decide whether any changes should be recommended to Parliament, but it will be some time before he will be able to make a statement.

Can we know how soon we shall have the statement? Is it not rather odd that the Chancellor should be asking traders to reduce their prices at the same time as the Government's own legislation is preventing them from doing so?

The extent to which the enforcement of resale price maintenance conditions by manufacturers is likely to hinder response to the appeal for lower prices can very easily be exaggerated. The goods on which resale price maintenance is in force appear to be well under 50 per cent. of the total retail market. Very few foodstuffs are now price maintained at all.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that under the threat of court action many retailers are forced to take a 80 to 100 per cent. profit margin when they would be content with something rather more modest?

That is a question about retail prices rather than resale price maintenance.

While the country will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for promising to look into this particular part of the Act, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend to have the whole Act reviewed in view of the experience of the last three years?

We think that the period is still very short, but naturally we keep it continually under review.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the increase in productivity per hour of British workers since 1954.

I regret that estimates covering all workers are not available. In the manufacturing, building, mining and public utility groups of industries output per man hour is estimated to have risen by 10 per cent. or slightly more between 1954 and 1959. The rate of increase in other occupations is generally less than in these industries.

Is it not the case that most of the increase has taken place in the last year? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Western Germany during the same period the increase in productivity has been two and a half times as great, as a result of the vastly increased investment in capital goods, machinery and equipment which the Government here have been deliberately restricting? Does not this shake the Government's complacency about the state of British industry? Is it not time that the Government stopped saying, "We have never had it so good", and did something about equipping our industry decently so that British workers' productivity could rise faster?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no such complacency on the Government Front Bench. The international comparisons to which the hon. Gentleman referred are difficult to interpret, but there was probably more scope among the other European countries for raising productivity by large capital investment and in other ways than in the United Kingdom or in the United States.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many trade agreements have been lodged with the Restrictive Practices Court; and how many of them have been approved.

Since the opening of the Register, 2,240 agreements have been registered. Of these, 770 have been abandoned and 1,470 still remain in operation, and of these, nine have so far been examined by the Restrictive Practices Court. One complete agreement and certain particulars of another have been found to operate in the public interest. Orders declaring restrictions to be contrary to the public interest have been made, with the consent of the parties, in 34 other cases.

Is it not clear from those miserable statistics that it will take about a hundred years to dispose fully of those price maintenance agreements? Most of them are illegal anyway. When will the Government get a move on with this?

The figures I have quoted show that Part I of the 1956 Act is operating efficiently. Action has been started by the Registrar to bring a further 120 cases before the court.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to abolish price-fixing agreements.

No, Sir. Effective machinery for bringing to an end undesirable price fixing agreements is already provided in Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.

Is it not clear that the arrangements in Part I of the Act are quite inadequate to deal with the problem in its present magnitude? Is it not clear, further, that all these trade agreements and resale price maintenance arrangements are sabotaging the Chancellor of the Exchequer's somewhat ineffectual appeal to bring down prices? When will the consumer get the benefit of increased productivity?

There is no reason so far to assume that all agreements on price are necessarily against the public interest.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the request from the Cardiff City Council that, in view of the number of unemployed persons in the city and the area surrounding it, Cardiff should be designated a special area under the Local Employment Bill.

In my reply to the Cardiff City Council, I said that we would bear their representations in mind when the time came to draw up the list of places to be assisted under the Bill.

When is that likely to be? Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the uncertainty in places like Cardiff? Does he know that the Cardiff Development Committee estimates that there are over 8,000 men and women unemployed within the natural catchment area for Cardiff, and does he realise that the uncertainty of the present position is causing grave repercussions?

I am aware of the unemployment figures for Cardiff and the surrounding area. As my right hon. Friend announced, the new list will be made available as soon as the Act is passed.

Will Cardiff be in it?

The hon. Gentleman will have to await the publication of the list.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the purchase by television contractors of film companies for the purpose of acquiring films for exhibition on television, he will bring forward legislation to impose upon television authorities similar obligations to those imposed upon cinematograph exhibitors by the Cinematograph Films Acts.

I do not see that the extension of the obligations under the Cinematograph Films Acts would be appropriate.

As it is obvious that an increasing number of films will now be shown on television, which is probably in the interests of viewers, is it not wholly unfair to cinematograph exhibitors that television companies should have no obligation to show a quota of British films or to assist British film production in any way financially, whilst those obligations remain on the cinematograph exhibitors in the state of the decline of the trade?

Section 3 (1, d) of the Television Act already places upon the Independent Television Authority the duty of satisfying itself that so far as possible a proper proportion of recorded and other matter included in the programmes is of British origin and with British performers. The B.B.C. makes similar arrangements.

That is not specific. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that a quite specific obligation is placed upon cinematograph exhibitors to show a certain quota of British films and a levy is imposed upon them statutorily to assist film production. The same thing should be applied to television companies.

Detailed questions about the operation of the Television Act are matters for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and not for me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to speed up the diversification of industry in the Dundee area in the light of his decision to reduce the mark-up on imported jute goods.

The Board of Trade has factories now under construction in Dundee which are expected to provide Over 1,000 jobs. In addition, financial assistance is available for suitable projects. We will continue in our efforts to encourage new industrial development in the area.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that Answer is not in the least satisfactory in relation to the problem? Is he aware, further, that the Government's efforts since the original reduction in the mark-up of jute have not matched the number of jobs lost then and that this latest mark-up is likely to reduce the number of jobs in Dundee in the coming year by a further 1,000? What specific efforts does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to make to give Dundee a share, for instance, in any expansion in the motor industry north of the Border?

We draw the attention of industries to the great need of Dundee for diversification.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some assurance that he will not push the reduction of the jute industry in Dundee further and further? On his own admission, he has exactly undone now all the work on creating new jobs in Dundee which he has done over the past year.

The jute industry is a slightly different question, but the trade has estimated that the reduction in the mark-up to which reference was made may effect 800 to 1,000 people. Projects under construction are expected to provide 1,000 jobs in 1960 and 700 there-after, and projects approved but not yet started in the district are estimated to provide a further 1,344 jobs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement of the Government's future policy for the United Kingdom jute industry in the light of his decision further to reduce the mark-up on imported jute goods.

This decision involves no change in the policy of maintaining State trading in the interests of employment in Dundee.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that this decision, as we prophesied during the General Election campaign, is a breach of the undertakings given by his own Government to the United Kingdom jute industry, on the basis of which investors have invested £10 million during the last few years? Will he bear this very much in mind in ensuring justice for the United Kingdom jute industry in any consideration of its future?

Certainly.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the reduction of 10 per cent. in the mark-up is the last that this Government will make in the life of this Parliament? What the industry wants is an assurance for the future.

I am afraid that I cannot give such an assurance.

Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary give that assurance? His failure to give such an assurance is a warning to the industry that it will be slowly strangled.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in negotiations between member countries of the organisation known as the Seven and the European Economic Community for the co-ordination of tariff policies.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made towards bringing about a closer association between the six Common Market countries and the Outer Seven countries and in lessening the danger of a division of Europe into two competing economic blocs.

I have been asked to reply.

It was agreed at a series of meetings in Paris on 12th to 15th January that the twenty Governments who are members of, or associated with, the O.E.E.C., together with the Commission of the European Economic Community, should arrange for the consideration of certain problems of commercial policy of particular concern to these Governments. This would include the examination, as a matter of priority, of the relationship between the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association, with due regard to the commercial interests of third countries and the principles and obligations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Is the Chancellor aware of the growing concern due to the failure of the Government to avoid the split which has taken place in Europe particularly on behalf of industry and, as we learned the other night, on behalf of people in agriculture? Is it not time for a complete reappraisal of Government policy, to recognise the realities in Europe and to seek now entry into the European Economic Community?

I certainly could not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the fact that the Six and the Seven have not yet reached any form of association is due to negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that any Government could have shown themselves keener or could have bean more energetic in the steps they have taken to try to bring about such an association.

Is it correct, as stated in the Press, that after the talks in Paris the British Government finally abandoned the attempt to obtain a Free Trade Area in Western Europe? If that is so, is there not an increasing danger that the division between the Six and the Seven will harden? Does the Chancellor agree that time is not on our side?

It is certainly not the case that the United Kingdom Government have abandoned the hope or intention of doing everything they possibly can to bring about a wider multilateral association, including all members of Western Europe.

Is it not quite clear that both the Six and the United States are firmly opposed to any special arrangements between the Six and the Seven involving discrimination? Would it not be as well if the Government now recognised this and also that, whether we like it or not, if there is to be an arrangement it has to be very near to a Customs union?

All these points will be raised in discussion, and we must see what the results of the meetings of the twenty Governments are. The terms of reference for their discussions are very wide and will include all these difficult points.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what additional industries are contemplated in the new town of Peterlee.

A new factory under construction at Peterlee should provide some 140 additional jobs, rising to 350. Other developments within travel-to-work distance are expected to provide some 3,000 more jobs.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by that Answer that work is to be provided for 3,000 people, but not in Peterlee? Is that what he said? Is he aware that I have been receiving these Answers for the past five or six years and I am becoming a little tired of them? Is he aware also that, while other areas are quite deservedly being injected with some new industries, very little is being done for the County of Durham? When will the Government wake up to the needs of the County of Durham?

We are very much aware of the needs of Peterlee and if there were applications for I.D.C.s we would freely grant them. Further, we bring to the notice of industrialists on the move the needs of Peterlee, but we cannot go very much further than that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the distress caused to innocent people by the exploitation of house- wives in South Wales by some representatives dealing in the sale on hire-purchase terms of household domestic appliances; whether he will introduce legislation requiring representatives engaged in such sales to be in possession of a Board of Trade licence; and whether he will make a statement.

The Hire Purchase Acts of 1938 and 1954 are designed to protect those entering into hire-purchase agreements of the type which, I believe, the hon. Member has in mind. I am not aware of any special problem in South Wales. If the hon. Member has in mind practices which are not covered by existing legislation, he will, no doubt, consider submitting evidence to the Committee on Consumer Protection.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of total new factory space approved was in the London and south-east region in 1958 and 1959, respectively; and whether he will give this figure for the successive three-monthly periods of 1959.

For schemes of over 5,000 sq. ft., 21 per cent. in 1958 and 17·6 per cent. in 1959; similar figures for the successive quarters of 1959 were 16 per cent., 18·8 per cent., 22·2 per cent. and 13·7 per cent.

Is this not rather slow progress, after the promises we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary? Can he promise us that this contraction will go more quickly in future?

The right hon. Gentleman ought, I think, to bear in mind not so much the square footage of new factory building as the number of jobs created. A great deal of the square footage to which he refers relates to warehouse space or the rebuilding of existing premises in order to improve the efficiency or productivity of the undertakings.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figure for employment?

The new employment relating to these schemes was estimated at 16·4 per cent. of the Great Britain total in 1958 and 13·9 per cent. in 1959.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now granted industrial development certificates for major expansion schemes in the motor industry; and in what areas.

My right hon. Friend has agreed to issue to the British Motor Corporation industrial development certificates for new productive capacity amounting to 3·1 million square feet, of which about 2·2 million square feet is in areas of high unemployment, 250,000 square feet at Swynnerton and 670,000 square feet in the Midlands. This will lead to the creation of over 11,000 new jobs in Scotland, Wales and Merseyside and 1,000 at Swynnerton without expanding the Corporation's labour force in the Midlands beyond the capacity of its existing factories. Discussions are proceeding with other car manufacturers.

Will the Minister accept our congratulations for following our advice in this respect, and, also, will he congratulate the British Motor Corporation on its co-operation, no doubt with some inducement? Further, will he keep up this good work, not forgetting the North-East Coast, in future?

Is the Minister aware that no part of the extension of the car industry has come to Scotland at all and that what we have in the plans he has put forward is the manufacture of tractors? Will he remember that what Scotland wants is an assurance that we shall have part of the car industry?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Certainly, we are indebted to the British Motor Corporation for its co-operation with us in achieving what we have so far achieved. I ask the hon. Lady to exercise a little patience.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with motor manufacturers with a view to the re-siting or the expansion of the motor industry beyond its present location.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with representatives of the motor car industry; and in particular whether he will estimate the prospects of any expansion of that industry being sited in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend is engaged in discussions with the leading motor vehicle manufacturers with a view to securing new capacity and new jobs for the areas of high unemployment. The House will welcome the recent announcement of the British Motor Corporation's plans, which provide for 12,000 new jobs outside their traditional centres, 5,600 in Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to consultations with the motor manufacturers, he has had consultations also with the trade unions concerned in order to make sure that this otherwise very desirable action does not result in competition in wages between the areas concerned? Further, will he say whether, in view of the interest of the steel industry, the machine tool industry and the electrical industry in the matter, he has consulted those wider interests also?

We are in constant touch with the trade union representatives on all these matters. At the present moment, we are concentrating on discussions with the motor car industry. Talks with other industries will follow.

Is the Minister aware that Scotland will not be completely satisfied with the extension which is being given there, and that the 5,000-odd jobs which are to be created represent only about 5 per cent. of the current figure for unemployed in Scotland. It does not go nearly far enough. Will he assure us that the simple fact that there has been this steering to Scotland will not adversely affect Scotland's chances of getting something from Ford, Vauxhall, Rootes, and so on?

I do not think that it would be wise for me to say anything more about current negotiations which are proceeding.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how much public money these companies are receiving, on what terms, and why they cannot find their own money?

The only scheme so far announced, that of B.M.C., will cost about £9½ million. The terms are not specially favourable to B.M.C.; they are available to any firm which would go to these particular areas.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many horses were exported from the United Kingdom to Eire in 1959.

Two thousand and ninety-one.

Does the Board of Trade keep any check on what happens to these horses? Have the Government conveyed to Eire their hope that the cruel and inhuman traffic in horses with France will be stopped?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is really barking up the wrong pole, because the average value per animal exported was £1,600. Live horses having a value below £120 cannot be exported without an export licence. There is, therefore, no evidence at all that we have contributed to the export of animals for human consumption.

Nevertheless, will the Minister pay attention to what his hon. and gallant Friend has said and bear in mind that many hon. Members of the House—I think I can say this of all hon. Members—have been horrified at this trade between Eire and France, and that anything he can do to bring his influence to bear on the Eire Government will be appreciated?

I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking regarding the development of sites for industrial purposes in or near Sunderland.

I understand that following consultations between Sunderland Corporation, the National Coal Board and the Board of Trade Regional Office, a new site suitable for industrial use has been found at North Hylton Road. No decisions have yet been taken about its development.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that information, which is very encouraging to us in Sunderland, but does he not agree that what we need, in view of our persistently high level of unemployment, is a new industry? Have we any hope that we may receive an extension of the motor industry for Sunderland?

We certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that diversification is required in the north-east, and we do our best to bring it about.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on chemical fertilisers.

It is expected that the report will be ready for publication towards the middle of February.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the appointment of the committee which is to examine certain aspects of methods of machine tool production.

Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has agreed to the appointment of Sir Steuart Mitchell, Controller of Guided Weapons and Electronics as the chairman of a small sub-committee which will have the following terms of reference:

"To consider the Report by Professor Melman prepared for European Productivity Agency Project No. 420, and to report to the Machine Tool Advisory Council what action could usefully be taken by the United Kingdom machine tool industry on his recommendations."

I am circulating the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In making any further announcements on this subject, will my hon. Friend specially emphasise the high quality and high reputation of British machine tools throughout the world?

I think we had better await the findings of this particular sub-committee.

Could not the hon. Gentleman short-circuit a great deal of this by agreeing to publish the Report of the D.S.I.R. which investigated the machine tool industry? Why cannot we have that information now?

That particular question has been answered previously by my right hon. Friend.

Can we, at least, be sure that this new report will be published?

Answer.

Mr. Albu.

Mr. Speaker, I think I asked a reasonable supplementary question, but no answer has been given.

The Minister showed no signs of desiring to answer. In the circumstances, I called the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu).

I am quite happy to answer. The proceedings and reports to the Machine Tool Advisory Council are confidential so that members may express their views frankly; but, when the appropriate time comes, there will be a public statement on the findings of the sub-committee.

Can the Minister say whether the report of this sub-committee will be published, how soon we are likely to receive it, and whether the membership of the sub-committee includes users, including those many users who are highly critical of the British machine tool industry?

It is expected that the sub-committee will complete its work during the next four or five months. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the list of members, users are included on the sub-committee.

What objection can there be to the report of this sub-committee being published? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a refusal to publish a report of this kind can create only the worst suspicions in people's minds that something is seriously wrong with the machine tool industry? Is it not far better in these matters to be completely open and frank?

I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await the findings of this particular sub-committee and the statement which will eventually be made as a result of its deliberations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, by provision for or encouragement of new basic industries on Merseyside, he will take in order to reduce the relatively high level of unemployment in the area.

The Board of Trade has recently agreed to build a new factory of 450,000 square feet at Kirkby for the British Motor Corporation which will employ 1,500 people. I shall continue to do all I can to persuade other industrialists to establish new factories on Merseyside and in the other areas of high unemployment.

What the hon. Gentleman refers to is a move in the right direction, but does he agree that it does not go nearly far enough? Does he not agree that what is necessary is the setting up in the area of major projects which will absorb a larger number of the unemployed in the area?

I agree that new firms need to be introduced into the area, but I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is estimated that over 10,000 new jobs are already in the pipeline.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost to the national revenue of doubling the existing repairs allowance on owner-occupied property.

About £13 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the national revenue of exempting from assessment the first £15 of net annual value of Schedule A tax on owner-occupied property.

In the region of £20 to £25 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, and I do not wish to intrude on the fiscal purdah into which he has now entered, but, in framing his next Budget, will he consider the advisability of increasing the repairs allowance to a more realistic figure and extending the concession at the moment given to Post Office savers to house savers, to the extent of exempting the first £15 of net annual value?

I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I would ask him if he, in his turn, will look at what the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Incomes said on both the points to which he has referred.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates that the cinema tax will yield, on the basis of present cinema admissions, in the year ending 31st March, 1960.

The Budget estimate included £9¼ million in respect of Entertainments Duty, and it was estimated that this would be reduced to £7¼ million by the relief under Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1959. It is not the practice to publish revised estimates during the course of the year.

The yield from the exhibitor, as the Chancellor knows, is steadily diminishing. Does he realise that, at the other end of the industry, millionaires are being made almost every day and that one gentleman recently observed that the easiest way to become a millionaire was to produce British films? Does he intend to continue this ill-balanced system whereby the poor are taxed in order to help the rich? Will he afford some relief to the exhibiting side in his forthcoming Budget?

I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If millionaires are being created, as he suggests, when they have been created I shall hope, with confidence, to get some contribution from them towards my general taxation.

Is that an intimation that we are to expect a capital gains tax in the next Budget?

I said that, when the creation of the millionaires had taken place, I should hope to receive something from them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the dissatisfaction created by the equity of denationalised steel firms which have appreciated in value being offered to the public and the prior charge stocks which mostly stand at a discount being retained by the authorities, if he will arrange that Richard Thomas and Baldwin's capital be converted into all ordinary stock before being offered for sale to the public, and so avoid any prior charge stocks remaining in the hands of the authority.

Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, lays on the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency the duty of, inter alia, returning nationalised iron and steel companies to private ownership in such a way as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained is financially adequate. In arranging any sales the Agency will, no doubt, take account of all material factors, including those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it has been rather un-satisfactory in the past that the equities which have been sold back to the public have risen to enormous premiums, whereas the fixed interest bearing stocks which have been retained are at a discount? To obviate this obvious unfairness to the taxpayer and to the nation, will not my right hon. Friend see that the whole of this capital is combined into one equity and offered to those who will buy it?

I have no doubt that the Agency will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The Agency having been set up for this purpose, however, we must leave it to the Agency to decide the best way in which it can carry out its rôle.

Is the Chancellor aware that there is substance in what his hon. Friend asks? The value of the ordinary shares of Colvilles, for example, has increased since 1955 from £13 million to nearly £40 million and this increase has been lost to the public because it has gone to the pockets of private shareholders. Does not the Chancellor agree that the sudden interest in Richard Thomas and Baldwin rather sterns from the fact that last year its working profits increased by 26 per cent., showing the very great success of public enterprise in the steel industry? Will he, therefore, take this as a cardinal feature of the great success of nationalised steel and retain it in public enterprise?

Listening to the hon. Member, my thoughts are rather more that the difficulties that the industry has had in raising capital in recent years have not been unconnected with the threats offered by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

In view of the success of Richard Thomas and Baldwin, as shown by its accounts, and the part played by the workers in the creation of this wealth, does the Chancellor think that there is any reason at all for denationalisation?

Yes. I would certainly never wish to agree that the workers in any successful industry were not entitled to their share of credit for the success of the industry. I would say that the success of these industries which have been denationalised, as well as those which have remained in public ownership, shows that this industry is perfectly capable of being run efficiently under private ownership, much more than under public ownership.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that all of us in this House who had the opportunity of being elected or otherwise by the workers of Richard Thomas and Baldwin came back with a mandate, not for denationalisation, but for continued nationalisation?

I do not think that that policy proved very popular with the electorate at the last election.

Since the electorate had not at that time heard the Chancellor describe this nationalised industry as a highly successful venture, will the right hon. Gentleman now take steps, belatedly, through the Conservative Central Office to ensure that they do hear? Will he, secondly, indicate what he thinks will be the total amount of the steel industry's earnings on this basis paid out in dividends in the next year or two as compared with the amount which has been paid back over the past few years?

Taken as a whole, the steel industry is a successful industry with excellent prospects. I certainly would not venture to suggest what level of dividends would be appropriate for the future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the World Bank on the loan of £20 million to the Government of the United Arab Republic for improvements to the Suez Canal; and if he will make a statement.

The question of the Canal loan was discussed on several occasions during my talks with the President of the International Bank last year. The Articles of the International Bank provide that only economic considerations are relevant to its decisions, though clearly political factors may be relevant if they affect the economic or financial soundness of a loan application. In the present case it was the judgment of the staff of the Bank that the loan was financially sound and should be approved, and, all things considered, Her Majesty's Government concurred in their judgment.

In view of that fascinating bit of hindsight by Her Majesty's Government, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer carry it a little further in the economic prospects of Egypt and tell us why the World Bank has been so lacking in foresight regarding the second stage of the Aswan Dam?

I could not give the hon. Member any information about that at this stage, nor would I accept his view as to the attitude of the World Bank so far.

When my right hon. Friend next sees the head of the World Bank, will he impress upon him that it is not only the Soviet Union that is interested in the people in the Middle East, but that Great Britain, too, has a part to play? Will not he again consider carefully Britain's contribution to the Aswan Dam?

The President of the World Bank, with whom I am in frequent touch, is aware of the general policies and views of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the necessary funds to acquire for the nation the freehold of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

This proposal has to be considered in relation to the many other demands on the Exchequer, in respect both of the main services of Government and of support for the arts. At this period of the year, I cannot undertake to given priority to one particular project of this nature.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that last year the trustees spent £57,000 on maintenance and that they have estimated that by the end of the 42-year lease, over £1 million of public money will have been spent on the maintenance of a privately-owned house? In view of this, does not the Chancellor think that action on the lines suggested would be in the interests, not only of British opera, but also of the Treasury?

The kind of consideration to which the hon. Member has referred—the relative advantages of renting or owning property—is perfectly relevant to this case and I shall certainly take into consideration the kind of points that he has raised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the inventoral value at 1st January, 1960, of the net assets of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in respect of the 12 remaining nationalised steel companies out of the 62 companies for which the Agency was made statutorily responsible in 1953; and what further progress has now been made towards total denationalisation of steel;

(2) the amount of the investment at 1st January, 1960, by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in steel companies already denationalised; and when such investments are to be placed on the Stock Exchange for public sale;

(3) having regard to the aggregate value of £196 million at 30th September, 1959, being the book value of the remaining subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, aggregated with the book value of prior charges and including outstanding loans made by the Agency at that date, and to the fact that this figure of £196 million reflects a slow rate of steel denationalisation by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, whether he will now make a statement as to the future policy of the Agency in regard to completion of steel denationalisation and the winding-up of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

At 3rd October, 1959, the latest date for which balance sheets are available, the value of the net assets in the books of the Agency's remaining subsidiaries was £92 million. At 1st January, 1960, the book value to the Agency of its prior charge holdings in and loans to companies already denationalised was £147·8 million.

On the general question, the Agency has a continuing statutory duty to return nationalised iron and steel undertakings to private ownership in such a way as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained is financially adequate. My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate any future offers for sale that the Agency may make.

Does my right hon. Friend perceive that the total of nearly £250 million of public moneys at present invested in the steel companies, nationalised and denationalised, is a sum practically as great as when the 1953 Act was put on the Statute Book? Does not this represent a snail-like progress towards total denationalisation? Will not my right hon. Friend assure that the Conservative Party honours its election pledges at three consecutive General Elections — 1951, 1955 and 1959—and completes the denationalisation of steel and the winding up of I.S.H.R.A. at a very early date?

We can rely on the Agency to proceed with its functions with all due speed bearing in mind the requirements that have been laid upon it. I would, however, like to emphasise that any difficulties that it has had in the past have derived not from the policies of Her Majesty's Government, but from the policies and attitude of the Opposition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that after the Agency has completed the task of disposing of the remaining assets of this nationalised industry, it will not turn its attention to the nationalised railways?

That would require drastic amendment of the Act from which the Agency derives its powers.

Will the Chancellor make it clear that despite the bias of the Government, Richard Thomas and Baldwin has proved far more efficient, if judged either by the production of steel or the production of profits, than any other component of the steel industry and that it is despite that—or, it may be, because of it—that the Treasury is now handing it back to private enterprise?

I do not possess the technical knowledge to differentiate between the different steel companies in regard to the points which the hon. Member has raised.

On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory Answers to Questions Nos. 41 to 43 inclusive, and, retrospectively, Question No. 36, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at a very early date.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an early removal or reduction of the tax on Derv fuel oil.

I have received such representations regarding Derv from the Joint Fuel Tax Committee for the Passenger Road Transport Industry as well as from some local authorities.

When the Chancellor is preparing his Budget, will he bear in mind that this tax on bus diesel oil is at the rate of 200 per cent., so that out of the £187,000 spent last year on fuel by the Salford City bus undertaking no less than £130,000 went on tax? Since bus transport is a necessity for most people. will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing this tax rather than giving, as he did in his last Budget, £45 million a year in tax relief to those with incomes of over £2,000 a year?

I will, of course, take note of what the hon. Member has said.