asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advisory boards and committees of a central or national character there are who now advise Her Majesty's Government; and what is the total cost of such bodies to public funds.

About 850. The total cost is not known, but will not be large as nearly all members of these bodies give their services free.

Can the hon. Member say how many civil servants advise the Government to accept or reject the advice of the advisory bodies? In view of the current chaos of the Government's policy, does it not seem that the Government's success is in inverse proportion to the amount of advice which they receive?

The second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is, I think, incorrect. In answer to the first part, I think that it is quite impossible to work out with any precision the number of advisers of the Government in Departments who advise in one shape or another on matters of policy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decision he has reached regarding increases in the Exchequer grants to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union to enable them to increase the number of overseas delegations.

As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House when the right hon. Gentleman raised this matter on 8th June, he is prepared to examine any specific proposal.

What is meant by examining "any specific proposal?" If I suggest to the Financial Secretary that his right hon. and learned Friend consults the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union and asks them what amount of money is required, will the hon. Gentleman agree?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider that point. Government support for overseas visits made by Members of this House under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is obviously implicit in the annual grants that they have made to these organisations for many years. At the moment no formal approach has been made to my right hon. and learned Friend, so I cannot add to the Answer he gave when the right hon. Gentleman last raised this Question.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that these sums are totally inadequate? Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerned about the grave damage which could result to Parliament from the fact that hon. Members who ought to travel about the world, particularly in areas for which the House is responsible, are dependent upon public relations firms and other organisations financing their trips? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer look at it again in the light of these new developments?

My right hon. and learned Friend made clear the importance he attached to this question. I do not agree that the grants we make are derisory or inadequate. The grant in aid to the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is £11,500. In addition, the Group receives assistance from the Government Hospitality Fund for its home entertaining to the value of about £4,000 to £5,000. The United Kingdom grant in aid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is over £27,000. I do not agree that these are derisory grants. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made that quite clear when he last answered questions.

How do the sums of £11,500 and over £27,000 compare with the funds made available by Voice and Vision, on the one hand, and by agencies representing the Spanish Government, on the other? Which is the larger?

I obviously cannot make that comparison without notice. I was merely pointing out that I do not consider that the Government grants are derisory. Also, as hon. Members can see from the Estimates, a special additional grant of £96,000 is being paid to the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association this year to assist with the cost of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which is to be held in London this autumn. Obviously these are important matters, but I do not think that I can add more today.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that most of the hot money attracted to London has now been repatriated and of the harm that high money rates are doing to house building and trade generally, if he will now recommend a 1 per cent. Bank Rate reduction in order to give additional encouragement to industry; and if he will make a statement.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that, even if I agreed with his analysis, I should not make a statement about future Bank Rate policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am glad that he agrees with my analysis of the situation? If he cannot promise not to reduce the Bank Rate, will he use his influence to ensure that we are not so stupid as to increase it, because increasing the Bank Rate increases our costs at home and hot money is no good to us at all? Will he see that these ideas are put before his right hon. and learned Friend?

I regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in the analysis which forms the basis of his question. As to the second part of his supplementary question, all these are matters which are taken into account in considering the level of the Bank Rate.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that, apart from the other damaging effects which were mentioned at Question Time last week, a large number of owner-occupiers, including myself, received a communication this morning from building societies saying that the rate of interest charged on building mortgages is now going up, this figure having been reduced three weeks before the last election? In view of this, will the Economic Secretary consider the necessity of making a fundamental change in our interest rate policy?

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, building societies' lending and borrowing rates are not geared to the Bank Rate and a reduction of 1 per cent. in the Bank Rate, as suggested by my hon. Friend, would probably not lead to any reduction in building society rates. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that building society rates move more in line with longer-term yields than with the Bank Rate or with money market rates.

Since high Bank Rates merely attract hot money, which disguises our real economic position and makes our people live in a fool's paradise, why do we not get cheaper money here so that our people can understand our real difficulties?

When dealing with the matter in the course of the Budget debate my right hon. and learned Friend frankly admitted that the level of the Bank Rate has to be determined in the light of both our internal and our external require- ments and that these sometimes conflict. All these matters are taken into account when the level of the Bank Rate is considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the hardship caused, particularly to those with fixed incomes, by the devaluation of War Loan and undated Government stock, if he will ascertain the number of persons wholly or principally dependent on income from such investments, with a view to determining what action is possible to relieve such hardship.

I do not think that such an inquiry would serve any useful purpose, even if it was feasible.

Does the Economic Secretary mean that he is not concerned about the large number of people who are affected by this unhappy position? They are people who have relied fully on the Government when investing their money and who today find themselves in penurious conditions because the value of their stock has gone down. Will he do something about it? I ask him to realise that it is important that he should try to find what kind of people, and how many, are being affected by this.

From the letters I have received and from talking to people, I am well aware of the difficulties which are facing people who hold this form of Government stock. My point is that merely to know how many people are dependent upon the income from Government securities, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would not help to overcome the difficulties which, as I explained to the House last December, stand in the way of adopting any special action.

Does the Economic Secretary recall that in the Budget debate on 20th April the Financial Secretary said this:

"the Government are well in command of the monetary situation and … the gilt-edged investor can very well face the months ahead with just a little more confidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1410.]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that goes outside this Question, but there is another Question later on the Order Paper which deals with the extent to which investors have been investing in Government stock.

On a point of order. I rose twice, Mr. Speaker, but you called somebody else. Have I no right to speak?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will always have a right to speak. In point of physical fact, I did not see him, but I am afraid that, even if I had, such is the pressure on Questions nowadays that I am not entitled to indulge my wishes by calling all those I see rise.

In view of your reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was most anxious to bring before the House the 3 per cent. War Loan swindle? I thought that it was necessary to raise it as it is nothing else but a swindle.

I should greatly like to indulge the hon. Member if I could, but I cannot because it would not be fair to other hon. Members.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will receive from the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in person, letters from individuals who invested in War Loan and who have suffered hardship.

Yes, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that response to my invitation, but is he aware that the article in the Daily Mail on the plight of people who invested in 3½ per cent. stock has been very much emphasised? Would my right hon. and learned Friend please look at the position of those living on small fixed incomes before I come to see him, in the hope that he may be able to suggest some way of helping these people in their present very parlous condition?

I think that it is apparent from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on several occasions since 17th April that he is very concerned about the position of those living on small fixed incomes. Indeed, the whole object of his economic policy at the present time is to keep stability of currency, which will be of benefit to these people. As to the position of War Loan, which is referred to specifically in my hon. Friend's Question, I am afraid that I should be misleading the House if I gave any indication that we should be able to help in any way there.

Can the Economic Secretary now answer the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the statement made by the Financial Secretary on 20th April?

Answer.

No. There is another Question later in the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the extent to which people are investing in Government stock, and I should have thought the answer more relevant to that Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the depressed price of undated Government stock, showing the reluctance of investors to support Government indebtedness, if he will accelerate his investigations towards reducing that part of the national assets administered by the Government.

I cannot accept the premise of my hon. Friend's Question that investors are reluctant to lend to the Government. £148 million was lent to the Government from the gilt-edged market in 1960 and we are not expecting to need any new money from that market in 1961–62.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite that reply, in addition to the hardship caused to the investors concerned, it is going to be almost impossible to raise undated Government stock in the market in the lifetime of anyone in this House? This is adding to the cost of lending money to the Government and is substantially increasing Government expenditure.

I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind by that, because his original Question asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will accelerate his investigations towards reducing that part of the national assets administered by the Government. I think that the Chancellor's views on the question of denationalisation are perfectly well known and I cannot usefully add to them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the shortage of junior medical staff in the hospital service, of the over-dependence of the hospital service on Commonwealth doctors, of the shortage of doctors in many Commonwealth and Colonial Territories, and of the overcrowding of British medical schools, he will initiate discussions with the University Grants Committee with a view to providing increased grants for new medical schools in suitable universities.

Discussion of this matter would be premature until the review to which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, referred on 5th June, has been completed.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very urgent matter? The damage done by the Willink Report has been very considerable. Will he encourage the Minister of Health to get a move on with this so that action can be taken?

I agree that this is an important matter and I am sure that all concerned will take due note of the point the hon. Member has made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Report of the Plowden Committee on methods of control of Government expenditure.

My right hon. and learned Friend has now received from the Plowden Committee a Report consolidating the views of the Committee over the whole range of its work, and he intends to publish it.

Does my hon. Friend realise that that is an entirely welcome and wholly satisfactory reply? It is very nice to be able to say such a thing in a supplementary question to the Treasury. Will he tell his right hon. and learned Friend that any other decision would completely frustrate and make a complete mockery of Parliamentary control of Government expenditure?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be glad when he reads that supplementary question. I hope with some confidence that my hon. Friend will find the Report, when it is published, extremely interesting and rewarding reading.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he seeks to remove from Aberdeen University the Saint Ninian's Isle treasure which was discovered by representatives of Aberdeen University and is now in the legal custody of that university and concerning which he has had correspondence with that university; and if he will now make clear his abandonment of all claim to that treasure.

I am advised that according to the law of Scotland, the objects found on St. Ninian's Isle belong to the Crown. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore in the negative.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Principal of Aberdeen University has stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland, without any legal right and in opposition to the relevant law and to court decisions of long standing and authority, wrongly persist in claiming this treasure from Aberdeen University, which is its depository and trustee, and will he now take steps to abandon these wrong, improper, unjust and dishonest claims?

As I find it rather a venturesome matter to discuss even English law in this House, I certainly shall not indulge in a discussion of Scottish law, not even with the encouragement of the Principal of Aberdeen University.

Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that at no time in any court has it been upheld that the Crown has superiority over the udal law of Shetland, and that it cannot, therefore, claim this treasure? Secondly, does he not feel that it is a matter of public policy that the central museums of this country should not claim every treasure that is found around these islands?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of my noble Friend's comment. I am sure, however, that every hon. Member in the House is better informed than I of the udal law prevailing in Shetland, but that they will not expect me to discuss here the legal basis of the Crown's claim to these objects.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to this Question, I hereby give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to restore the Customs facilities to Southampton Airport in order to enable the airport to meet the demand for air services to the Channel Islands and to the Continent.

Customs facilities have already been arranged for the services scheduled for 1961 to the Channel Islands and the Continent. The position will be reviewed at the end of the year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the restoration of the special Customs facilities. May I ask, however, whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Government sold the airport to the present owners as a going concern, and, as full Customs facilities are necessary for its operation, will he please take immediate steps to enable the airport to be designated a Customs airport?

I could not accede this year to my hon. Friend's request, but I can assure him that redesignation would be possible if the international traffic developed sufficiently.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that, whilst we are delighted that the anxieties about the airport have been temporarily relieved, his colleague in the Ministry of Aviation assured us in answer to a Question on 15th March that he would use his good offices to help the airport? That being so, would the hon. Gentleman see that no further difficulties are put in the way of a very plucky effort?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in suggesting that any difficulties had been put in the way of this airport. In fact, I think that the Customs have been very forthcoming. Whether or not they can go on to give full Customs services—in other words, designate the airport—depends on the amount of traffic.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of encouraging tourists to conic into this country, he will now abolish the carnet/triptyque forms of documentation for private motor cars temporarily imported into the United Kingdom.

The possibility of simplifying the current requirements is being considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are now the only country in Europe that insists on this documentary paraphernalia, and does he not think that this must inhibit our tourist trade?

I know the interest that has been taken in this matter by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I hope very much that we shall be able to announce a decision in the very near future, but I would add that this is a much more difficult matter than appears at first sight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it involves serious risks of Revenue evasion and, consequently, has to be very carefully considered. I would only add that it is quite wrong to assume that the considerations that have caused most other European countries to abandon this system are relevant to our own position.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this investigation has been going on for months and months, and that this lack of decision is making our country a laughing stock throughout Europe? Does he not think that, in the interests of the development of our tourist trade, the matter demands much more urgent consideration?

I regret the delay in reaching a decision. As I say, I hope that we shall be able to announce it in the very near future.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts he proposes to make in Government expenditure overseas.

I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 20th June.

Is not that rather poor progress? Will the Economic Secretary press on the Chancellor and the Government the desirability of putting right at the top of their priority list the cost of British Forces in Germany where we could save about £50 million a year straight away? Will he not, in this connection, follow the very good example of the American Government, who are also withdrawing 20,000 troops from this country, and does he not agree that the sooner all foreign troops are taken from all these countries the better?

What is important is that the Federal Republic of Germany should, in one form or another, make a full contribution towards solving the problems of international imbalance.

Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that no cult whatever is intended in economic aid from this country to the under-developed countries?

All forms of Government expenditure overseas will be reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend. We shall have to consider very carefully what future level of overseas expenditure we can afford.

Whilst we welcome this interest in a subject that we on this side raised in February and in the Budget debate with no response what- ever from the Government, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will see that any reductions are concentrated on those elements in our overseas expenditure that really ought to be reduced, including that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)? Also, when looking at the question generally, will he take an entirely fresh look at the whole business of the failure of British firms to bring back their earnings from trade as a result of overseas corporations?

This Question refers to Government expenditure overseas, and I can assure the House that the review that my right hon. and learned Friend is making covers all forms of Government overseas expenditure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax a married man paid when his income was £220 in the financial year 1938–39.

None, if the income was all earned, and £3 6s, 8d., if the income was all from investments.

If that be true when they had an income of £220, does not the Financial Secretary think that the basis for non-payment of tax should be raised in accordance with the standard of living?

If I may say so, that arises more out of the figures involved in the hon. Gentleman's next Question. I could not accept it as a general principle, but I would ask him to put his next Question, when I can answer him

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in the cost of living since 1938; what would be the equivalent now of a £220 wage in 1938 if it had only risen to the extent of the cost of living since 1938; and what amount of income tax would be paid by a married man in this case.

The cost of living in May, 1961, was 191 per cent. above the 1938 level. On this basis a wage of £220 in 1938 is equivalent to £641 in 1961. On such earnings a married man without dependants would pay £52 Income Tax in 1961–62.

As I understand the position, the cost of living has gone up by 190 per cent. If so, why is the wage earner today paying taxation at such a high rate? Is it not time that the low basis of taxation for the married man was raised in accordance with the cost of living?

That is a perfectly fair question and I can give the hon. Gentleman two brief answers. Firstly, to exempt the married man from Income Tax, on an earned income of £640, would require a married personal allowance of £500 in place of the present £240. To raise the married personal allowance to £500 and to raise the single allowance correspondingly from £140 to £300 would cost together about £900 million in a single year, and the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is an enormous figure. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should reflect that social income—the value of the social services enjoyed by the average working man with that salary—is infinitely greater than before the war, apart from other benefits, such as that of full employment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his inquiries into the reduction of Government expenditure.

I have nothing at present to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 20th June.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while many of us hope that the Chancellor will not have to curtail road and hospital building programmes, we equally hope that the Government will rapidly denationalise the remaining steel organisations that are still administered by the Government and will also dispose of the surplus railway properties as soon as legislation permits?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that steel denationalisation hardly arises directly out of this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the continuous process of reduction of support by the Arts Council for provincial touring theatrical companies; and whether he will draw its attention to the need to give continued support to the provinces.

My understanding is that the Arts Council has not reduced its support of such companies. The Council is well aware of the needs of the provinces.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Caryl Jenner Mobile Touring Theatrical Company, which does excellent work in Lincolnshire, Cornwall and Scotland, had its Arts Council grant of a paltry £3,000 completely cut and that that action will probably mean the end of this mobile touring company? This was done following on the death-blow to the Carl Rosa Opera Company. It is a definite blow at provincial touring theatrical and operatic companies. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the Arts Council's attention to the fact that when we ask for a national theatre we are told that the Council cannot do anything more for London because it is concentrating on the provinces, but now it is cutting the provinces?

Discussions are now in progress between the Arts Council and the Caryl Jenner Mobile Touring Theatrical Company. The repertory theatre has gained considerably from Arts Council grants during the last few years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage rise in wages, salaries and dividends, respectively, during 1959, 1960 and the early months of 1961.

Between 1958 and 1959 total wages are estimated to have risen by 3½ per cent., total salaries by nearly 7 per cent. and ordinary dividend payments before deduction of tax by 12½ per cent. Between 1959 and 1960 wages and salaries together—separate figures are not yet available—are estimated to have risen by 7½ per cent. and gross ordinary dividend payments by about 24½ per cent. Preliminary indications for the first quarter of 1961 are that wages and salaries were about 9 per cent. higher than a year earlier and gross ordinary dividend payments about 12 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

In view of these figures, will the Chancellor give an undertaking to produce some plan for limiting increases in dividends before talking about more wage restraint?

No, Sir. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, moderation is important here as in other increases in personal incomes and I certainly would not wish to minimise its importance. But it is necessary to keep a sense of perspective in this matter. In 1960 dividends, before taxation, amounted to less than £1,000 million while the wage and salary bill totalled £13,570 million.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when work will commence on the advance factory at Shotts; and when it will be ready for occupation.

Negotiations for acquiring the necessary land are proceeding; building work will begin as soon as possible after they are completed, and is expected to take about nine months.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary make certain that there is no unavoidable delay whatever in the putting up of this factory, since the area is desperately in need of jobs which, it is hoped, will be made available by this factory?

Yes, we shall do our best.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract industry to the Newmains Cleland area of Lanarkshire, which is scheduled under the Local Employment Act.

The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts to encourage the introduction and expansion of industry throughout North Lanarkshire, and the Board's Office for Scotland is in close touch with the Lanarkshire County Council. Because of subsidence there is difficulty in finding industrial sites in the Newmains Cleland area, but there is suitable land available within a few miles.

This area has lost many hundreds of jobs in the last few years as a result of the closing of ironworks and pits and, since no alternative industry whatever has come in, what steps—other than those that have been announced by the Parliamentary Secretary today and about which we have heard year after year—and what action are the Government taking to attract industry to this area?

The Local Employment Act facilities are, of course, available and, in addition, a number of jobs are developing round about. There are 4,800 jobs in prospect in the North Lanarkshire area and, as the hon. Lady knows, unemployment in the area has declined by 1,500 in the last year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the concern expressed by the Prime Minister of Jamaica at the West Indies Constitutional Conference at the removal of safeguards for traditional and important West Indian export markets as a result of dollar liberalisation; what consultations Her Majesty's Government had with other Commonwealth, including colonial. Governments about the new measures of liberalisation of dollar imports to take effect on 1st August; why no forecast was made by his Department of changes in the pattern of United Kingdom imports likely to result from these measures; and whether he will now make a full statement on the Government's policy for the safeguarding of West Indian and other Commonwealth, including colonial, markets in the United Kingdom.

As regards the first and fourth parts of the Question, we shall continue to take Commonwealth interests fully into account in implementing our commitment to end discrimination against imports from the dollar area. As regards the second part, we consulted the Commonwealth Governments concerned before announcing these measures. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 8th June.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the Board of Trade did not study the likely effect on these Commonwealth imports before deciding on liberalisation, and can my hon. Friend now assure me that the vital interests of our fellow subjects overseas will not be badly affected next August?

My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that he had not studied the effects. He said that it was impossible to forecast them. That is the situation. We consulted the Commonwealth countries with a view to ensuring that the timing of this had the least possible adverse impact on their sales.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what success he has had in bringing new industry to the City and County of Aberdeen, since the introduction of the Local Employment Act.

Five new projects, employing about 85 people, have come into operation in Aberdeenshire, and further projects to employ about 125 are in prospect.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is only chickenfeed? Does he further realise that he now has an unrivalled opportunity of fulfilling some of the Governmental promises to bring trade to Aberdeen by attracting some of the contracts and sub-contracts in connection with the building of the new Cunarder so that the £18 million of public money to be spent on that project will be distributed fairly throughout Scotland?

I realise that unemployment has fallen from 3·2 per cent. in the Aberdeen district in May, 1960, to 2·5 per cent, and that an £800,000 Government contract was recently awarded to an Aberdeen shipbuilder.

Can my hon. Friend say what action has been taken by his Department to try to persuade firms in the industrial belt of Scotland to award sub-contracts to the development areas, such as Aberdeen?

I am well aware of the desirability of doing exactly what the hon. Lady suggests.

But will my hon. Friend say what he is doing about it?

The regional controllers are in constant touch with industry and they make this point to industry in appropriate circumstances.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been created in the Central West Fife area since the passing of the Local Employment Act; and how many jobs have been lost in the same area in the same period as a result of tile rundown of the mining industry.

About thirty jobs have already accrued in Central West Fife and another 640 are in prospect. About 600 fewer men are employed in the mining industry than a year ago.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a derisory result of the Local Employment Act and that the facts do not reveal the whole picture because many men and youths have left the area to go to the Midlands, South-East England and other parts of the United Kingdom? Can he say whether he regards the position of the youths in the area—the boys and girls who are now leaving school in increasing numbers—as at all satisfactory?

We are very conscious of the need to provide employment for those leaving school at the present time. The fact is that in this area, as elsewhere, unemployment has fallen—in this case from 3·5 per cent, to 2·8 per cent. over the year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance, in view of the position both of the United Kingdom and the European jute trades, that he will take no action to negotiate terms for the entry of Great Britain into, or association of Great Britain with, the Common Market without satisfactory arrangements being made for the continuation of the prosperity of the British jute trade, and for the avoidance of distortion in the European jute trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the resolution on trade deflections adopted by the recent General Assembly of the Association of European Jute Industries in Lisbon, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what estimate he has made of the effect that such deflections would have on the British jute industry if the United Kingdom were to become associated with the European Common Market.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the jute industry in the Dundee area regarding British participation in the Common Market; and what reply he has made.

The Association of Jute Spinners and Manufacturers has written to my right hon. Friend to express apprehension about the effects of possible association with the Common Market. He has informed the Association that the points made in its letter have been noted. I can assure hon. Members that, in any matter affecting trade in jute goods, my right hon. Friend will continue to take account of the importance of maintaining employment in Dundee.

Will my hon. Friend agree that the jute industry is a wholly exceptional industry in that it is concentrated in Dundee and district? Will he not only note what is in this letter but keep in the closest touch with the industry so that it will not be sold down the river with the question of the Common Market?

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the special position of the jute industry. In fact, the Treaty of Rome makes provision to allow the possibility of special measures, among other things, to deal with "difficulties which may seriously impair the economic situation in any region".

Is my hon. Friend aware of the belief that the trade deflections in jute arise from the imperfect provisions in the Treaty of Rome in respect of definition and certification of origin? Will he bear this deficiency in mind in the course of any negotiations which may take place?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Government bear in mind that Dundee has a chronic unemployment problem and has one of the highest unemployment rates in Scotland? Will he also bear in mind that while this national industry is concentrated entirely in the Dundee area, Dundee is geographically a long way from any alternative source of industrial employment? Will he make sure that there are adequate safeguards in any arrangements that he makes?

As I said in my original Answer, we will take account of the special position of Dundee.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that unemployment in Dundee is 1,000 more than it was a year ago? Will he see that the safeguards which he agrees exist in the Treaty of Rome are emphasised to the full in any future negotiations?

Yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the position of Dundee will be borne in mind in the course of any negotiations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he is making to the Australian Government regarding the increase in the duty from 27½ per cent. to the equivalent of 48 per cent. on the importation of flax into Australia, including those goods which are now in transit; and what effect this increase in tariffs will have on the exports of the British flax trade.

I assume my hon. Friend to be referring to the recent change in the duty on canvas and duck of flax previously dutiable at 27½ per cent. The new duty on these goods was imposed in accordance with the terms and procedure laid down in our trade agreement and there are no grounds on which my right hon. Friend could base representations. It will take some time before the effect on our trade can be judged.

Will my hon. Friend convey the feeling of the flax industry to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations so that he may talk to Mr. Menzies when he goes there shortly, and point out that, as the flax industry can hope for nothing in the Common Market, it is very important that it should retain its traditional Empire and Commonwealth connection?

The Association of Flax Spinners and Manufacturers has already made representations to my right hon. Friend, and I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refrain from granting licences for the sale of arms destined to be used against national liberation movements in Angola and Mozambique.

Applications for licences will continue to be considered in accordance with the procedure and policy indicated in the reply which I gave to the Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 20th June, but applications to supply military equipment to Portuguese overseas territories are at present in suspense.

While welcoming the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask if he can confirm that General Pina, the Chief of Staff of the Portuguese Army, was in London this month to negotiate a sale of arms? Can he say whether arms have been licensed to Portugal? How is it going to be possible to impose restrictions to prevent them being used in connection with the policy of the Portuguese Government in Angola?

This matter comes to my Department when applications are made for licences. I am not aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I am unable to confirm what he has said.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that South African films are no longer eligible for British quota.

In this, as in other matters, the position under United Kingdom law held by South Africa prior to its withdrawal from the Commonwealth is preserved for a year by the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1961.

Does that mean that, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, this is only a temporary situation for a period of twelve months, and that at the end of twelve months the situation is likely to be that the South African producers will no longer be given the benefit of a system designed to stimulate British and Commonwealth production? Is that the situation?

The position is that the present situation is preserved for a year and that in the meantime we shall be considering what is to happen after that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received, since the announcement that South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth, on the subject of South African films and British quota; and what reply he has made to these representations.

None, Sir, but my right hon. Friend has sought and obtained the views of feature film producers about the future treatment for quota purposes of films made in South Africa. Their views will be taken into account when the decisions are taken.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the concern of milk producers in Scotland at the continued importation of full cream powder from Belgium, France and the Netherlands and of skim powder from France; what evidence he has received that there is a bounty or subsidy on the export of the former and that imports of skim powder from France are both subsidised and dumped in the United Kingdom below the domestic price; and what action he proposes to take to prevent injury to this industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the disorganisation of the home market resulting from the dumping of French spray milk powder at over 10s. per cwt. below current prices of the equivalent home and New Zealand products and that this commodity is subsidised by the French Government and is causing loss to the producers of milk and the manufacturers of milk powder in the United Kingdom; and what action he proposes to take;

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet taken a decision on the formal application by the Milk Marketing Board for antidumping duties on full cream and skim milk powder, the export of which is subsidised by Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he now proposes to take to stop the import of milk products at prices below the cost of production in the countries of origin.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take concerning the request of the Milk Marketing Board to stop the dumping of milk products.

The Board of Trade is engaged in a full investigation of the application by the Milk Marketing Boards for action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957 against full cream milk powder imported from France, Belgium and the Netherlands and on skim milk powder imported from France. The investigation has been extended to Austria, Finland and the Irish Republic and may be extended to other countries which appear to be supplying milk powder at dumped or subsidised prices. Representations have been invited from interested parties. My right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the outcome.

In view of the apprehensions and anxieties which are already facing the dairy industry in this country, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to remove this further threat to the industry?

The first thing is to investigate the facts and to ascertain the effect that this might be likely to have upon the industry.

Since on the last occasion that the Milk Marketing Board applied to the hon. Gentleman's Department it took five months for the Department to make up its mind, will the hon. Gentleman do better this time?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the investigations have to be very full in order to satisfy the three conditions under the Act.

Why does my hon. Friend have to wait until an application is made by the Milk Marketing Board? If it is in the national interest to stop this cheap dumped food coming in, why cannot he take action straight away?

That is only one of the three conditions involved in the Act. One of them is that there must be material injury to United Kingdom industries. It is for the industry to make its case first.

Will the hon. Gentleman invite all the European countries mentioned in these Questions to join with the United Kingdom in a joint programme for the export of these surplus dairy products to the under-developed countries where they are badly needed?

My right hon. Friend will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not think he would expect me to say more about it today.