asked the President of the Board of Trade what further prospects he has in mind to assist the expansion of industries in the Hartlepools, which now has the highest unemployment rates in the North-East.

I am aware of the continuing high unemployment in the Hartlepools and I shall continue in my efforts to steer new industry to the area. Since my hon. and gallant Friend asked a similar Question on 3rd August, 1961, two firms have decided to set up in production in the Hartlepools and several others have been shown sites in the area.

I appreciate the efforts my right hon. Friend is making in this direction, but nevertheless the figure of unemployment in the Hartlepools is tragic, having risen from 3·8 per cent. to 6 per cent. at present. We have to face the reduction in the Reserve Fleet next year, with a further hundred or so unemployed to come. We still have the bulge ahead of us. There are still large areas in the Hartlepools Industrial Estate which are ready for expansion. May I express the hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts in this direction?

Yes. I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend that we will do all we possibly can and will continue our efforts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has received of monopolistic practices by the firms engaged in the production of steel in this country.

I have received no evidence suggesting that there are grounds for referring the supply of steel and steel products to the Monopolies Commission, but a number of agreements between steel producers have been registered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Does not this make utter and total nonsense of a publication by the Labour Party which is, I believe, entitled, "Pipe Dream for the Sixties"?

Order. That cannot possibly be a question for the Minister.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he takes to ensure that, when an application for action against dumping is made to him, he has immediate information of the price at which the commodity which is the subject of the application is being sold in the country of origin.

The Board of Trade normally expects an industry which applies for anti-dumping action to provide some initial evidence of the price at which the commodity suspected of being dumped is being sold in the country of origin. If the case appeared to justify fuller investigation, the Board would then immediately set on foot further inquiries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain producers were alarmed last year—for example over the case of the Polish eggs—when it took the Board of Trade about twenty days to obtain confirmation of the internal price of eggs in Poland? Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of looking at certain cases where commodities have been repeatedly dumped to ensure that the embassies in those countries keep a constant watch on the internal price so that this information can be obtained quickly?

I think that I ought to remind my hon. Friend that it is for the industry to take the initiative. In the case of Polish eggs, which we have argued at length during this year, the Board of Trade was able to act very quickly indeed. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that it really would not be possible for us to maintain a constant watch at all embassies in all countries in regard to all products which might at any time be dumped.

Is my right hon. Friend aware hat in the case of Polish eggs, although the Board of Trade acted quickly once the internal price had been confirmed, it was twenty days from the time the Board of Trade agreed to look into the price of eggs before it confirmed what the price was? Does he agree that this is undue delay?

No. The question goes much wider than Polish eggs. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the steps we took on Polish eggs, I should be glad if he would table a Question on the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of the difficulty in this matter stems from the fact that it is hard to ascertain internal prices in countries behind the Iron Curtain? Although I appreciate that he has to defend this system, I hope that he will realise that there is a great deal of discontent about the way in which it is being run. I hope that he will look at this, because customers, on whose behalf the system was instituted, are very far from sharing his satisfaction.

I appreciate the concern felt by many people about the operation of the Act, but I have said before, and I should like to repeat, that just as soon as an industry or a group of people come and see us at the Board of Trade we will then be very glad to look at the matter urgently; but we cannot take action in anticipation of a possible approach, because to do so would mean that we should always be running round after every possible hare which might never become a starter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he proposes to take to improve the competitive position of the manufacturing industries and increase United Kingdom export trade.

These will continue to be major objectives of the Government's policy, but the primary responsibility for improving the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and for increasing exports rests with managers, designers, salesmen and workers engaged in the production of goods and services.

As the President of the Board of Trade has had great experience in large-scale, efficient industry engaged in the export trade, will he now take the initiative so that resolute and urgent action can be taken to increase our exports, which would be in harmony with world expansion of trade? Does he not agree that those of us who have always deprecated the subordination of Britain's trade interests to our foreign policy have now been proved correct?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to urge industry to increase its exports. As proof of that, we are constantly improving and overhauling the services we give to exporters and would-be exporters. Furthermore, the Chancellor's policy for the economy of the country as a whole is likewise designed to encourage and increase exports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has made a study of the cost comparisons, circulated at the International Industrial Conference held in San Francisco, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South; what is the reason for the high cost of United Kingdom materials, the low cost of labour and the relative low cost of the total unit cost; and if he will carry out an investigation into the increased cost of materials sold to the manufacturing industries engaged in the export trades in relation to world prices, in view of the need to take all measures to improve the competitive ability of United Kingdom exports.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend to a Question about these cost comparisons put by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on Tuesday last.

It would be interesting to know the date on which that matter was first raised and not allow it to affect us too much. Does the Minister agree that the cost of raw materials to British manufacturers, particularly those engaged in the export trade, is all wrong? Does he not agree that there is need for an urgent investigation into those costs in order that we may be fair, and that those manufacturers should be helped so that they would have a fair chance?

I would rather like to study the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question before trying to answer it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to take to check the excessive growth of industrial employment in the Eastern Region shown in Appendix 6 of the First Annual Report by the Board of Trade on the Local Employment Act, 1960.

The growth of industrial employment in the Eastern Region has been large, but I do not agree that it has been excessive. Six of the eight London new towns and seven expanded towns are in the Eastern Region. The purpose of these new and expanded towns is to receive overspill population from London and, of course, employment has to be provided for the people moving into these overspill towns. Of the estimated 16,348 new jobs in the Region, 11,046 were in these overspill towns.

Although I realise that the cause of this expansion in the Eastern Region is largely the new towns, would the President of the Board of Trade examine rather seriously whether, if the expansion goes too far, it will not distort his whole attempt to restrain the excessive expansion of employment in south-east England generally? Would he agree that the figures for the Eastern Region are very much out of line with those for the other regions?

I could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the Eastern and South-Eastern Regions, taken together, accommodate 27 per cent. of the total employed in manufacturing industry for the country as a whole, but they shared only 22·8 per cent. of the country's additional employment. They are not, therefore, growing more rapidly than other parts. Whenever we find a firm which can be moved to a development district, we certainly take the opportunity of persuading it to go there.

While I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is doing and will go on doing his best, may I ask if he is not really saying that the expansion in the Eastern Region has gone a long way towards nullifying the restrictions he has successfully applied in London and the South-East?

It must be remembered that some of the country's most expanding industries are located in London and the South-East Region, and must be allowed a certain amount of expansion in their existing locations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that for the first ten months of 1961 imports of cotton yarn and woven cotton cloth exceeded exports; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the position.

I am aware that for the last two or three years imports of cotton yarn and woven cloth have exceeded exports. When I visited Manchester on 8th December, I discussed with the industry the disappointing export trend in recent years and how this might be remedied. My Department is now following the matter up direct with the various sections of the industry.

It is all very well for the President of the Board of Trade to say that he is following the matter up, but what has he done, and what does he propose to do? Will he spend the Christmas Recess reading the various statements made from the Government Front Bench over the last ten years every time the Government have attacked the industry? Will he read the Government's statements when there was the revision of the Liverpool Cotton Market; when the Cotton Board was crippled, and when re-equipment came in? Does he realise that what was once our greatest export industry has been reduced to the condition in which it is a net loser—in which there is an overseas liability on textiles? Does he really intend to do something about it, and do the Government really care about the textile industry?

Of course the Government care about the textile industry, and if the hon. Gentleman would stay until later in the day he could, perhaps, join in a debate on the cotton industry in which I will be able to reply more fully to the points he has just raised.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a further recession has taken place in employment in cotton spinning and doubling of over 10 per cent. since December, 1959, and that estimates of short-time working show local figures approaching 10 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to increase employment.

I am aware that employment in cotton spinning and doubling has declined since December, 1959, and that short-time working in these sections of the cotton industry has recently increased, but there is no shortage of employment in the cotton area as a whole.

While we are all glad that there is no shortage of employment in the cotton area—and that is the one thing that saves us—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that short-time workers are getting other jobs, and are never coming back? They have had enough. They have been shifted backwards and forwards with these crises and increases and diminutions, and they are never coming back. How will we maintain skilled employment in the textile industry unless some assurance, some certainty is given, and unless the market itself knows whether we are Common-marketing or Common-wealthing, or what we are to do in the future? How will they know?

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous supplementary answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission that the Imperial Tobacco Company should dispose of its shares in Gallaher.

I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on 28th November.

Is not this quite a disgusting state of affairs? Why is the President of the Board of Trade so weak-kneed and lily-livered in his approach to the tobacco barons who are continuing to flout with impunity the very carefully-considered recommendations of the Monopolies Commission which it took five years to reach? When does the Minister intend to put his foot down, and not allow himself to be treated like a doormat by these tobacco magnates?

I do not propose to reply to the hon. Gentleman's more offensive allegations, but I would inform him that it is far more important to reach the right decision than it is to reach a decision quickly. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.

While not adopting the line taken by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I do not happen to agree with it—may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that earlier this month I had an intimation from his Department that an answer, one way or the other, would soon be coming? While I have no particularly strong feelings on what that answer should be, I think that it really is time that the Government made up their mind one way or the other.

I have said in a previous supplementary answer that I hope to make an announcement shortly. I am sorry that I cannot do so before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Why is the President of the Board of Trade so terrified of the Imperial Tobacco Company? Surely it should be possible, even for this Government, to make up their mind in six months on a simple proposal like this?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not afraid of the Imperial Tobacco Company, or of the insinuations in his supplementary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate discussions with trade unions and employers in the motor cycle and allied industries in order to make the necessary adaptations within these industries to ensure that exports are expanded or at least maintained.

No, Sir.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the American motor industry intends next year to manufacture a million of what it calls sub-compact motor cars, which will be an even more grievous challenge to our already contracting motor industry than was the introduction of the compact car, which made such an important contribution to our recession in 1958? In those circumstances, is it not desirable that the motor industry should have some form of association, for example, with the Chancellor's new planning body, in order to concert its efforts, which have hitherto been anarchic, catch-as-catch-can, and snatching a quick profit only to be followed by a prolonged recession?

I read the hon. Gentleman's Question as referring to the motorcycle, and not the motor-car, industry. I do not know whether he intended me to consider the motor-car industry as well but, if so, the answer would be the same. When the new planning organisation is set up, it will be for the Council to decide what subjects it should study first.

Is not that a rather supine attitude on the part of the Minister? Is not it the case that the Government have a responsibility in this matter, and should not they take some initiative in connection with the whole range of the motor industry, from motor cycles to motor cars? Is it not up to the Minister to take some initiative in this matter?

I should like hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise that the Government are not responsible for everything. Industry is responsible for running itself, and the Government do not want to become meddlesome old governesses poking their noses into everything that goes on.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from British motor manufacturers in connection with the dumping of Renault motor cars for eventual resale to private hire companies; and, in view of the damaging effect which this dumping has had on firms who manufacture taxi-cabs, what action he is taking to prevent this form of unfair competition.

I have had no representations from the British motor manufacturers. It is open to them to apply for action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957 if they can show some evidence that dumping is taking place and is causing or threatening material injury to the British industry.

Is not it an undoubted fact that, during the recession of 1958, the Renault manufacturers brought back from the United States a large number of Renault cars, dumped them at Southampton and then issued them to the minicab proprietors, thus introducing two elements of unfair competition, firstly to the men in my constituency who make London's taxicabs, and, secondly, to the operators of minicabs who, because of these preferential arrangements, have been able to undercut the legitimate operators?

It is up to the industry concerned—or one particular firm manufacturing a specialised article—to make application to the Board of Trade under the Act. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Board of Trade is only too willing to hold informal talks with a minimum of delay at an early stage with an industry to see whether any application is likely to succeed and to help the industry in framing its application in the most favourable light.

Will the President also have informal talks with the Home Secretary about the present situation in London arising from the minicab development?

That question is not for this Minister.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the maximum number employed at the Board of Trade factory in Wilson Road, Huyton, originally leased to Hosemaster and now leased to the English Electric Company, the number presently employed in that factory and his estimate of that number for the future.

Statistics of employment in a particular factory are confidential and cannot be disclosed.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the numbers now employed and intended to be employed fall far short of the hopes of the Board of Trade in this respect? In view of assurance given by his predecessor that this factory would be leased only for production and not for storage, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to see that that assurance is being honoured?

I am not going to be drawn into giving any information about the level of employment, because that would be a breach of the confidential nature of the collection of the statistics.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman in this case once again showing his weakness and also his tenderness for private firms when there is Government money involved? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this factory, which was built many years ago with Government money, was intended to provide the maximum employment in an area of considerable unemployment? In view of the assurances that were given quite clearly and specifically in this House that it would be used for production, even if the right hon. Gentleman dare not tell us about the employment figures—which makes us suspicious about this—can he say what is being done to honour the assurance that this factory would be used for production and not for storage or for repair work?

I will look into the question of assurances but I do not think, from what I know of the subject, that the situation is as described by the right hon. Gentleman in his supplementary questions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the number of industries involved, the effect on the national economy, and the monopoly involved, if he will immediately refer the merger between Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds to the Monopolies Commission.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the merger between Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds, in view of the increased danger of monopoly involved.

I have no power to refer proposals for a merger to the Monopolies Commission. Should the merger, if it takes place, give rise to conditions in which I considered that there were grounds for referring to the Commission the supply of any of the goods affected, I would of course do so.

In view of the enormous and unprecedented range of industries involved in this prospective or potential merger, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will use his influence to try to prevent it taking place until he has had a full inquiry into its possible effects? If this enormous concentration of economic and commercial power is necessary or, perhaps, inevitable, would not the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that if such a merger did take place the nation, in an effort to control its own destiny, would have to have public control of those industries?

The answer to all those questions is "No, Sir".

In view of the huge aggregation of industrial power involved and the monopoly likely to be created in practically all synthetic fibres, and some other products, does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that the merits of the case, from the point of view of the public interest, should be argued before some sort of public tribunal before an operation of this size goes forward?

No. I do not agree with that at all.

Could my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be wrong for firms contemplating mergers which would create a monopoly situation to assume that if we entered the Common Market they would not come wider the existing restrictive practices and monopolies legislation?

I think that that is a matter which would have to be carefully considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the monopolistic dangers here are infinitestimal compared with the tremendous advantage in the competitive field if these two organisations came together, because of the economies that would be involved and because of the size of the undertaking, which would be able to protect raw material prices for textile manufactures in this country?

Better this than the Americans taking it over.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for having pointed to some of the advantages of the proposed merger. Other hon. Gentlemen have pointed to some of the disadvantages. It is because I think there are prospective advantages as well as prospective possible disadvantages that I have answered in the way I have.

The right hon. Gentleman has given singularly little information about the Government's view on this. May I put it to him that, as there are these differences of views about the advantages and disadvantages, there must be a weakness in our legislation at the moment if a merger can take place which involves, I believe, 140,000 employees and nearly £1,000 million capital without the public interest in the matter being declared at any time? While there may be a great deal to be said on both sides, should it not be possible for the Government to indicate, in view of the importance of this to the national economy, that we will have a considered view on the matter so that the nation can make up its mind?

I thought that it was clear that the people who are proposing the merger would have the interests of the companies in mind and, naturally, the interests of their staff. The public interest is best served by their continuing to sell their products as cheaply and efficiently as possible, and only in that way can they remain a profitable undertaking.

While, of course, it is the business of the heads of these companies to consider the interests of their own shareholders and staff, and while there are advantages and disadvantages involved, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his own colleagues have argued earlier this week that the public interest should be considered by wage tribunals in quite minor wage negotiations? Is it the view of the Government that that should happen in wage and salary negotiations, yet a huge industrial merger of this kind should not even be considered from the point of view of the public interest?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to revise the strategic list of prohibited exports.

I would refer the hon Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Warbey) on 21st November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have looked at that Answer and at others? Could he tell me why the Government are pursuing policies at home, like the wage pause, in order to try to rectify the imbalance between our exports and imports, and at the same time pursuing policies abroad which will restrict our chance of exporting, in spite of the fact that those policies have notably failed in respect of Chincom and Cocom and will continue to fail in so far as the Common Market is the method of carrying on these policies? Could not the right hon. Gentleman think in more liberal terms? Does he not realise that so long as multilateral trading exists, this type of restriction in trade is bound to fail, as I have seen with my own eyes?

I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that the embargo is restricted to goods of strategic importance. The trade in those goods is necessarily limited.

While the right hon. Gentleman is exporting Viscount aircraft to China, which I welcome and which every sensible person welcomes, will he say whether he will refuse to export the necessary aviation spirit required to fly the Viscounts, in view of the fact that aviation spirit is on the embargo list?

I think that we shall have to look at that matter when we know whether the Chinese wish to purchase a brand of spirit which is embargoed. We need to know a great deal more about exactly what spirit they have in mind and what is required for operating these Viscounts.

asked the President of the Boa rd of Trade what arrangements he has sanctioned for licences for the sale of petrol from Italy in Great Britain, other than petrol deriving from Soviet sources.

No licences are required for such imports.

I take it that the oil is coming. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not so long ago his predecessor stated that in this country oil was running out of our ears? Is the right hon. Gentleman now bringing it in from Italy so that oil will run from our noses, too?

In pursuance of our policy of free competition in this country being the best way of serving the public need, we see no objection to the company called A.G.I.P. finding an outlet for retail sales in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how our policy of free competition harmonises with our policy of restricted exports?

No, not on this Question.

Surely that is pertinent to the Question?

The Question is about licensing arrangements for the sale of petrol.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what days this year he met the National Production Advisory Council on Industry; whether export incentive schemes were on the agenda of those meetings; what action was decided upon; and if he will make a statement.

On 3rd February, 5th May, and 10th November. There was also a meeting on 21st July at which the Chair was taken by my right hon. Friend, the then President of of the Board of Trade.

In view of that reply, may I ask how the Midlands industries will be able to compete with their opposite numbers either in the Common Market or in West Germany? Will the Minister get this right? If the financial policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not command the confidence of British exporters or of the trade unions, or the respect of the City, he must realise that it is high time that the Chancellor accepted an earldom.

That supplementary question goes far wider than the Question on the Order Paper which asked whether export incentive schemes were discussed by this Council. I would only say to my hon. Friend that from my own knowledge—and I do get around quite a lot—I think he is taking far too pessimistic a view of what people—industry, trade unions and others—think of the financial policy of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade has just replied that the Government are not responsible for export trade policy? If that is so, who is responsible for the export trade policy of Her Majesty's Government? Will the hon. Gentleman answer that?

What my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do is to pursue an economic policy which will provide the right climate for our exporters. Indeed, if my hon. Friend will look back at what my right hon. and learned Friend said when he introduced his measures on 25th July this year, he will see that this was one of the aspects which were foremost in his mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the representations made to him at the end of July, 1961, by the University Grants Committee about university salaries; and what decision he has reached in this matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals were submitted to him in July last by the University Grants Committee concerning salaries of university teachers; and what reply was given to these submissions.

The position in respect of this salary claim was explained by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on 27th November, to which I would only add that all relevant matters are being taken into account in considering it. It is not the practice to publish the advice which the Government receives from the University Grants Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable dissatisfaction among university teachers about this claim? Even if the Government think that this is the kind of claim which ought to be subject to the pay pause, could not they at least publish their proposals, even if the operative date is a month or two ahead, so that university teachers can see what is going to happen? There is very considerable annoyance at the fact that they are being kept completely in the dark about this.

I do not take exception to anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that there is genuine concern about this matter, and I hope that it will be possible for the Government to make an announcement reasonably soon.

As it is generally known, although the advice of the University Grants Committee is not published, that it invited the Association to put in a major wage claim for the rectification of its scales, would the Chief Secretary consider receiving a deputation from the Association so that it could put its case to him, in view of the justifiable grievance that it feels?

No, Sir; we must not do anything to derogate from the position of the University Grants Committee. It is established, and always has been accepted by the House, that it is the University Grants Committee that advises the Government, and I am sure that that is right. I assure the House that I regard this as an important matter and I am extremely anxious to get the position known before the time when the universities will need to recruit for next October.

Is not the whole procedure about these salary negotiations extremely unsatisfactory in so far as the Association of University Teachers never knows what the University Grants Committee recommends to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why cannot this sort of thing be made clear in some parallel way to what happens with school teachers? Why should they be kept completely in the dark about what is happening?

I do not think universities are exactly of the same status as the schools. The whole system of the Government receiving confidential advice through the University Grants Committee has been accepted by this House for many years and is looked on in the world outside as a remarkably fine method of preserving both the responsibility of the Government and the independence of the universities.

If the Chief Secretary is not able to receive a deputation from the Association of University Teachers, will he be willing to receive a deputation of Members of this House from both parties to discuss both the machinery and the nature of the claim? This is the responsibility of the House in the last resort, and, as the university teachers have no negotiating machinery, would it not be proper for Members of this House to take an interest and try to see the Chief Secretary about it?

I am always ready to see Members of the House about any matter, but I do want to press on, and I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that there should be any delay in the Government making an announcement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have been made to him by the University Grants Committee with regard to the establishment of new medical schools; and whether he has had discussions with the Minister of Health on this subject.

No such proposals have been made to my right hon. Friend or me. I recently requested the University Grants Committee to consider with the universities the implications of the revised estimate of requirement for doctors which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 29th November.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that it is now generally recognised that we are suffering from a serious and growing shortage of doctors, a shortage which can never be met out of the capacity of the existing medical schools? Does he understand that we are bound to need at least two, or probably three, more medical schools and, since it will be nearly ten years from the taking of the decision before we have any qualified doctors from a new school, will he treat the matter as urgent?

I recognise the urgency of the matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made a statement to the House about the additional need for doctors. Nevertheless, it would really be quite wrong for me to anticipate the advice I receive from the University Grants Committee on this. I invited the University Grants Committee to give me its advice, and it must be for that Committee in the first instance to consider how the increased intake of medical students is to be provided for.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the nature of the official business connected with the Prime Minister's visit to Glasgow on 3rd November, which cost £56 7s. 9d.

The cost did not relate to official business connected with Glasgow but to the arrangements which always have to be made to enable the Prime Minister to deal with any official business which requires his attention when away from London.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is admitted that this was a private visit of the Prime Minister intended exclusively to raise funds for the Tory Party and that at Glasgow he met Mr. Cotton, Mr. Clore and Sir Hugh Fraser for that very purpose? The Answer given to me on Tuesday, 19th December, was to the effect that the fares of two officials accompanying the Prime Minister cost £33 16s. Why should two officials go to Glasgow at the taxpayers' expense in order to enable the Prime Minister to raise the morale of the Scottish Tory Party and raise funds for it?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to inquire about what the Prime Minister did in Glasgow, he should put Questions not to me but to my right hon. Friend.

I have put them already.

Perhaps he does not realise that, whenever the Prime Minister goes away from London for any purpose whatever, even to stay with friends, he is always accompanied by a detective and a secretary and possibly by other staff.

Why should the Prime Minister be accompanied by a secretary on a private visit to Glasgow concerned exclusively with the raising of Tory Party funds? It was not connected with official business at all. In view of the position which the right hon. Gentleman now holds, to cut public expenditure, will he take an axe to this kind of expenditure?

If the hon. Gentleman becomes Prime Minister one day, he will discover that the affairs of the world do not cease the moment the Prime Minister's train draws out of King's Cross Station.

But is not my hon. Friend perfectly justified in raising this matter? As the Chief Secretary, whom we are glad to see at the Box at last, is so keen on public economy, will he explore the possibility of Mr. Clore, Mr. Cotton and Sir Hugh Fraser perhaps forming a consortium to defray these expenses and thereby relieve the Exchequer?

I know nothing about the actions or possible actions of those gentlemen. I think it would be a pity if the House were to take the view that the Prime Minister should never visit Scotland except at the expense of the Scots.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ex-India and ex-Burma civil servants have been asked to return their lump sum compensation by reason of being offered alternative employment by Her Majesty's Government; and how much has so far been claimed back and paid.

Since 1948–49, 109 officers of the Indian and Burman services have been asked to refund for this reason compensation amounting to £196,000. Of this £190,000 has so far been paid.

Is there not a standstill concerning those at present and recently established in the Home Civil Service who have been asked to repay a substantial lump sum, the period of the standstill coming to an end at 31st December? Since my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) hopes to take Parliamentary action, possibly through a Ten-Minute Bill, to rectify what some of us regard as an injustice, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the period of standstill for another three months?

No, Sir; I cannot accept that there has been any injustice here, nor can I add anything to the very full explanation which was given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in reply to an Adjournment debate on 1st November.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue received in taxation from the shipping industry during each of the past six years.

The information requested by my hon. Friend is not available but the estimated amounts of tax assessed on the profits of the shipping industry in the six years 1955–56 to 1960–61 are £17 million, £33 million, £45 million, £28 million, £5 million and £4 million respectively. The last figure is provisional.

Those figures—I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving them—must cause profound disappointment to him and to his Department. I do not ask him to anticipate his right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement, but will he be good enough, when the Budget statement is being framed, to see that consideration is given to the basic fact that shipping is a really international industry and that British shipping cannot compete with the rest of the world's shipping when its fiscal misfortunes over the years are such as to paralyse its competitive power? Does he appreciate that it is vital that the British shipping industry should be put upon the same basis, from the taxation point of view, as the fleets of other countries, and that that alone will increase the tonnage under the British flag?

As my hon. Friend knows, the shipping industry already benefits from a favourable rate of investment allowance for new ships. I agree that the shipping industry is facing very considerable problems especially in competition with overseas shipping companies, many of whom operate under flags of convenience, and I assure him that, in the course of the various discussions which precede my hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement, the problems of the shipping industry will be taken into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to discover the current rates of interest being charged in respect of credit facilities and the rates of premium paid on export credit guarantees made available to exporters abroad; what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to take to ensure that British manufacturers and exporters are not placed at a disadvantage in this respect as a result of any lower rate of interest being made available generally to any of our principal overseas competitors; and if he will make a statement.

We take all reasonable steps to obtain the sort of information to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to credit facilities in this country, I do not think I can usefully add to the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made in the House on Monday of this week, 18th December.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bank Rate and the corresponding bill discount rate charged in Germany at the current rate is about half of that in this country and that, therefore, exporters of heavy industrial items, particularly ships and such things as paper-making machinery, are at a definite disadvantage because contracts running into many millions of pounds can be very much affected by a difference of interest rate or by a difference of credit guarantee rate of only 2 or 3 per cent.? Will he consider publishing more information about this for the benefit of the House?

If there are any particular points which my hon. Friend would like me to answer in the House, I shall be very pleased to consider them. I must remind him that it was only earlier this week that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he thought there was room for improvement in our machinery for the provision of credit. He was, of course, referring there not only to the availability of credit, but also to the terms of credit. I assure my hon. Friend that these are matters among those uppermost in my hon. and learned Friend's mind. The discussions he is at present having have not yet been concluded, but he hopes to be able to say something to the House as soon as Parliament re-assembles.

Is the Minister aware that this is one of the most important problems which must be considered by his Department during the next few months? Is he aware that the Japanese economy is now geared to a very high Bank Rate, never less than 10 per cent., which gives an enormous advantage to Japanese exporters when bills are discounted at 2·55 and loans are made to Japanese industry at no higher rate than 4 per cent. for everything in the pipeline for export up to six months? These are very serious disadvantages for exporters in this country. The hon. Gentleman will find those figures in a report compiled by the Federation of British Industries.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, namely, that rates of interest are of very considerable importance to exporters. Of course, the situation inevitably varies from country to country, and the hon. Gentleman will I know accept the fact, as in fairness he must, that earlier this year we were faced with very considerable balance of payments difficulties. Inevitably, I think, in our present economic situation, we have to face high interest rates.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the examination papers which have been required to be answered by Colonial Service officers, wishing to transfer to the Commonwealth Relations Office, during the past five years.

Reprints of examination papers are on sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a reprint of one of the sets of examination papers to which he refers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will postpone the operation of the ruling, announced in Command Paper No. 1337 on the financial and economic obligations of the nationalised industries, that nationalised industries shall in future be obliged to finance a larger proportion of their capital expenditure from internal resources, so far as this involves the nationalised industries in raising their prices to the public.

No, Sir.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this policy, is it not obvious that a major change of policy of this sort can be carried out only if some, or perhaps all, of the nationalised industries raise their prices to the public? Is not this a most inappropriate time for that to happen in view of the Government's policy generally? Why cannot this policy at least be deferred until the pause policy has been stopped?

It is the view of the Government and I think of most people that the nationalised industries should, as far as possible, be conducted according to normal commercial criteria.

This means bluntly that the nationalised industries at the moment are being forced to put up their prices. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify that in existing economic circumstances when he is calling upon workers, trade unions, and so on, to exercise restraint? Surely this is the most inappropriate time to do that. Is that not what is happening at the moment, that the nationalised industries are being forced to put up their prices? May we have a clear answer to that question?

The hon. Gentleman is implying all the time that the nationalised industries would serve the country better if they were freed from the normal commercial obligations on every private company to do at any rate a substantial part of their capital financing out of their surpluses. Surely that must be right.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is very hard for individuals to save at a time or inflation, that the Government seem to find it difficult to do the same and that an undue amount of national saving is being put on the private sector of industry? If more were put on it through the nationalised industries being excused, it would be a quite unreasonable burden for it.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the nationalised industries should play their part.

While I think that there is no dissent from the proposition that all industry should endeavour to finance its capital, at any rate to some extent, from its own savings, that is not the question that the Chief Secretary is being asked. He is being asked whether at this moment, when the Government say that their purpose is to maintain the value of wages and that they wish the pay pause to continue, this change should be made in the financial structure of the nationalised industries which will result in their putting up prices to the public.

The White Paper on the nationalised industries was published in April this year, so that hon. Members have had plenty of time to give attention to it. At present, we are seeking to agree with the nationalised industries what the targets of their financial performance should be. That must be the right way to proceed.

May I ask the Chief Secretary this one further question: are increases in prices to be made by the nationalised industries during the period of the pay pause arising from this change in their financial arrangements about savings?

The prices and charges made by the nationalised industries are matters for the boards of those industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has studied the report sent to him by the magistrates of a London court, regarding the circumstances under which a 10-year-old girl, instead of being sent to a special school for maladjusted children, was for seven months kept in a mental hospital where she was the only child among 1,200 mentally ill adults; and what reply he has sent.

My right hon. Friend understands that it was not the intention of the magistrates to send him a report, but he has made inquiries. He is informed by the local authority, in whose care this highly disturbed child was, that repeated efforts were made to place her in a hospital catering for children or in a suitable special school. She was accepted for a special school in September but it was about six weeks before a vacancy occurred.

Is not the hon. and learned Member aware that this child was there for seven months? Is it not a disgraceful state of affairs that a child who should go to a school for maladjusted children should be sent to a hospital and be the only child among 1,200 adults? Does not he and his right hon. Friend appreciate the distress of parents when conditions like this exist, particularly when the mother went and found that the child's hair was matted with mashed potato? Surely if the courts take action such as this, is there not some responsibility on the Home Secretary to ensure that proper places are available to which these children may be sent?

In fact, the responsibility for the provision of this sort of accommodation is primarily that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is well aware of the difficulties. Efforts were twice made to transfer the girl to a hospital which catered for mentally subnormal children. The girl's parents were opposed to this, however, and the medical authorities felt that it would be unwise to admit her without their consent. She was not considered suitable for the usual type of special school. Three Rudolf Steiner schools which were approached were unable to offer a vacancy, but a fourth did and she is now settling down well there.

Should not there be special schools for cases of this type?

We need more special schools, as we need many other institutions.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, take steps to ensure that there is no possibility of a recurrence of this kind of incident in which a young child is sent to a hospital in which all the other inmates are mentally ill adults?

The case has, of course, been carefully noted by the Minister of Health, and no doubt what the hon. Gentleman says will be further noted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the doubts that exist about the need for bookmakers' runners to attend at betting shops after closing to settle the day's transactions, he will instruct the Metropolitan Police not to institute prosecutions in this matter.

The Commissioner of Police is responsible for enforcing the law in the Metropolis and this is not a matter in which it would be proper for my right hon. Friend to intervene.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is some misunderstanding among police authorities in this matter, that it is a perfectly reasonable thing for the runners to attend after hours and that this does not constitute a betting transaction in the sense in which it was discussed during the various stages of the Act?

There has so far been no prosecution in the Metropolis on this point. In so far as there is a point of law involved, my right hon. Friend has no authority to express an opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on the Police.

I understand that the Royal Commission hopes to present its final report next spring.

Can the Minister of State say whether the Royal Commission has any intention of producing an interim report on police behaviour in Trafalgar Square on 17th September? If so, can he say when it is likely to be published?

As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 9th November, arrangements have been made for the experience gained in the handling of these cases to be put before the Royal Commission, but it is for the Royal Commission to decide whether or not to submit an interim report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether one of the eight new remand centres will be definitely identified with Cornwall.

Males under 21 from courts in Cornwall will be received at Exeter Remand Centre and females in a wing of Pucklechurch Remand Centre near Bristol.

That Answer will give great satisfaction to the authorities in Cornwall, who have been working under great difficulty, because most of the people who have been remanded have had to go to Bristol and even further afield than that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether one of the seven new detention centres will be definitely identified with Cornwall.

A senior detention centre for the South and West is being built at Haslar, Hampshire. A site for a junior detention centre is under consideration.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the needs of Cornwall and Devon in this matter, and will he try to ensure that the deten- tion centre which is under consideration is placed in the West Country?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to prevent the sale of toy guns which bear actual resemblance in all details to the real weapon in view of the fact that they are an added incentive to crime, especially to youth.

I doubt whether legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would be practicable. The use of an imitation firearm in connection with serious offences such as housebreaking or robbery already attracts the same penalty as the use of a real weapon.

Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that these weapons are perfect in design, that they are quite cheap and that in the hands of youngsters and irresponsible youths, since they can be obtained so easily, they constitute one more thing which increases crime in this country?

To pass a law stating that no toy resembling a gun should be sold would be to ban toy guns altogether. We feel that it would be quite impracticable to define the point at which a toy ceases to resemble the real thing. However, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that under the Firearms Act, 1937, the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm attracts the same penalty.