asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the difficulties caused to local authorities, he will reconsider the rates of interest which should apply to all loans advanced by them, as set out in Circular 30/62 from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

The rates of interest charged on loans from the Local Loans Fund are kept in line with those ruling on the market for local authority borrowing. If the market rates fall, the rates which the Public Works Loan Board charges on these loans will be reduced also.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the past when Bank Rate has fallen rates of interest on long-term loans to public authorities have also fallen? Why has not this happened in this case? Why does the Public Works Loan Board still charge 6¾ per cent. when the Bank Rate has gone down? Will not he use his influence to bring this high rate of interest down, thus helping would-be house purchasers to buy houses?

The rates of interest of the Public Works Loan Board have decreased. The rate was 7½ per cent. for certain types of loan last August. But these rates are not associated directly with the short-term rate, which is the Bank Rate. I see no reason why the trend for long-term interest rates to fall should not continue. I remind the hon. Member that another factor affecting the costs of housing is that costs have gone up about 17½ per cent. during the last two years and that during that time earnings have risen by 17 per cent.

While we appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants an alibi, will he answer my hon. Friend's question? Before the Chancellor's emergency Budget last July the long-term rates for the local authorities were 6¼ per cent. They are now at 6¾ per cent. As Bank Rate is now down to 4½ per cent., why have these rates not declined also to the level of a year ago, in view of the very heavy burden placed on the local authorities and the work they are trying to do?

These rates do not follow Bank Rate, which is the short-term rate. They follow the long-term rates, which are at present showing signs of falling. I see no reason why that trend should not continue.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of Civil Service pensioners in receipt of a pension for full pensionable service of under £200 per annum; and what was the total numbers of pensioners with similar service in pension groups rising by £100 per annum.

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

The following are the figures: The table below shows the estimated number of Civil Service pensioners both industrial and non-industrial at 30th September, 1961, in receipt of pension in respect of 40 or more years' pensionable service.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of non-industrial Civil Service pensions in payment on the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the percentage of these in which the total payment did not exceed £5 per week.

On 30th September, 1961, the total number of pensions being paid to retired non-industrial civil servants was 137,000. Of these, 60 per cent. did not exceed £5 a week. But I would point out that about 90 per cent. of these pensions of below £5 a week are pensions paid to people who did not have a full career of reckonable service.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that, in spite of the 90 per cent., the remainder need to have their conditions fully looked into once again? Living on under £5 a week is surely a very great hardship in these days.

I am aware of that fact. But my hon. Friend will also realise that 90 per cent. of these pensions are not in respect of full careers of reckonable service. This is a matter which is under review.

As many of these people are suffering considerable hardship, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to undertake a review of the pensions, would not he reconsider the Income Tax burden on these lower income groups and introduce an Amendment on the Report stage of the Finance Bill to relieve people on that level entirely from taxation?

That is an entirely different issue from the one raised in this question.

With respect, that is not so. The question concerns how we can help people on small pensions. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds it too costly to raise the pensions, why cannot he do something to exempt them from Income Tax?

The question asked for certain statistical information, which I have given.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very large number of public service pensioners who are living on pensions based on very low salaries of many years ago? These are the people who have been most hardly hit by the inflationary process. Will he now initiate positive action in order to alleviate the lot of these poor people?

I am considering that matter.

Is the Chancellor aware that over 150 hon. Members of all parties in the House have asked him to do something for the public service pensioners and particularly for the old public service pensioner whose pension has gone right out of step with the rising cost of living?

I am aware of that fact and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am considering this matter now.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many Organisation and Methods staff are employed in the Treasury; how many are employed in other departments; and whether he is satisfied that that number is sufficient for all purposes of investigation and re-organisation required by Government Departments.

Fifty-nine people above the grade of clerical officer are employed on Organisation and Methods work in the Treasury, and 456 in other Departments. I think that these are sufficient.

Can my hon. Friend say whether 359 people are sufficient to look into the activities of nearly 500,000 civil servants, and would it not be advantageous to the Government in trying to achieve economy to bring in outside management consultants who have methods and organisation departments well-versed in these problems?

I am very ready to consider any suggestion which my hon. Friend has to make. It is fair to say that the work of the Treasury Division was reviewed in detail by the inter-Departmental committee appointed in November, 1960, and by the Plowden Committee in 1961. If my hon. Friend will turn to the published version of the Plowden Committee's Report, Cmnd. 1432, paragraph 53, he will see quite a favourable reference. Of course, I will bear in mind what he has said.

Without desiring in any way to be facetious, can the hon. Gentleman say who in his Department is responsible for the organisation and methods of the Organisation and Methods Department?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on that subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of reference of the National Economic Development Council will enable that body to make recommendations on the reorganisation of industry on the basis of public ownership.

It is open to the Council to consider any subject which it thinks relevant to the economic performance of the nation and, in particular, to its rate of sound growth.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? Is it included in the terms of reference?

No, the terms of reference are more general; I did in fact give them to the House in the course of my speech in one of the economic debates.

Cannot the Council go outside the terms of reference and deal with this very important aspect of the reorganisation of industry?

I specifically said when I started the work of the Council that I would not seek to veto any topic which it wished to discuss.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend state if the Council will be able to recommend denationalisation?

That also will be open to the Council.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Economic Development Council will include in its studies the special problems of Northern Ireland.

The Council's field of work covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The Director-General of the Council is in touch with the Economic Adviser to the Northern Ireland Government.

In view of the persistently high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland as compared with any other part of the United Kingdom, will my right hon, and learned Friend ask the N.E.D.C. to give special consideration to the possibility of establishing new industries in Northern Ireland?

The question of the level of employment in various parts of the United Kingdom will certainly be within the terms of reference of the Council.

Will the Chancellor note that Northern Ireland is in a special category because, in addition to the shipbuilding crisis which it has had for so long, there is now an appalling problem in the aircraft industry? Will he appreciate that this small country is part of the United Kingdom and is facing problems which deserve special attention?

I agree with the hon. Member.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that another committee is looking into the problems of Northern Ireland, namely, the Hall Committee. Can he tell us when its report will be available?

Not in dealing with this Question, which is concerned with N.E.D.C.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps sufficiently to reduce the number of civil servants so as to absorb, without increased charge to the Exchequer, the recent increase in Civil Service pay.

I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's purpose. I am very ready to examine proposals for reducing the number of civil servants. I must however say that most suggestions pressed upon me by hon. Members on both sides of the House are likely to increase the number of civil servants required. My hon. and gallant Friend may be slightly consoled to know that apart from the Post Office there were 29,000 fewer civil servants on 1st April, 1962, than on 1st April, 1951.

While partially encouraged by that reply, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not agree that, if the doctrine of comparability on which Civil Service pay is alleged to be based is sound, any redundant civil servant would have no difficulty whatever in finding an appointment elsewhere?

I think that the point is that which I made to my hon. Friend. The House is constantly passing Measures which impose more duties and civil servants are required to carry out those duties. That is why the number remains so high.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the number of non-industrial civil servants has gone up by 37,000 since 1959, and the reason for the increase in the Post Office?

One example is the graduated pensions scheme. That is a case where a very heavy additional burden is put on a Department as a result of an Act passed by the House. I will certainly see whether I can give my hon. Friend further information.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the balance of payments is sufficiently strong to enable grants and loans to be paid for fishing vessels built in foreign yards; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of foreign exchange will be required to purchase from foreign yards fishing vessels attracting subsidy under the Sea Fish Industry Bill.

I hope that prices quoted by British shipyards will be so competitive that no orders will be placed overseas. In which case no question of a strain on the balance of payments arises.

Even if my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that no orders will be placed overseas, does he not think that, in view of his continued hope of conserving foreign exchange, it is most unwise to introduce this measure now, particularly as it has never been done before on the ground of balance of payment difficulties?

I think that I can answer that in two ways. First, I do not think that it would be right to deny the British fishing industry the chance to buy the boats which they need and which are the tools of their trade at the cheapest possible price. Secondly, to maintain this restriction under present circumstances would, in my view, be a breach both of the G.A.T.T. and the E.F.T.A. Treaties.

Cannot the Chancellor get his right hon. Friend to have another look at this? It seems to me that he is laying himself open to a drain on our foreign currency, and does it not seem rather extraordinary that this should only have just been realised and that the subsidy should only have just been extended to foreign built vessels?

I hope that our own shipyards will be able to quote prices which will mean that they will get the business. On the other hand, it is difficult to deny to the fishing industry the right to buy their boats at the cheapest possible price. The reason for doing this now is that new legislation is required and there are our obligations under E.F.T.A. and also under the old G.A.T.T. obligations.

Will the Chancellor give figures showing how much it is open to him to pour into foreign shipyards workers and owners at the expense of British shipyard workers?

If the hon. And learned Gentleman will put down a Question saying precisely what figures he wants, I shall try to give them.

As it is possible for this country to apply for a waiver of the G.A.T.T., would my right hon. and learned Friend not think that that would be a wiser move?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when those recommendations of the committee of inquiry into the theft of the Goya portrait from the National Gallery, which Her Majesty's Government have accepted, will be put into operation.

As soon as possible.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while people welcome the fact that he supports the majority of the recommendations of the Bridges Committee, these recommendations cannot be carried out unless he gives sufficient funds for them? Is he further aware that he himself must take the main responsibility for the theft[Laughter.]—for allowing the theft to take place—of the Goya from the Gallery and for the deplorable conditions described in the Bridges Report because of the fact that he has not supplied sufficient money either to pay the attendants and wardens enough or employ enough attendants and wardens in spite of repeated requests to do so from the Gallery Trustees?

Without going into the question of the allocation of responsibility, I can say that we shall carry out as soon as possible the recommendations of the Report.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the National Debt increased by £194,155,558 between 31st March, 1959, and 31st March, 1960, and by a further £174,484,792 between 1990 and 1961.

I am unable to recognise the hon. Member's figures. The National Debt increased by £356 million in 1959–60, and by a further £519 million in 1960–61, as stated in the Returns relating to the National Debt, which were presented to the House as White Papers (Cmnd. 1221 and 1574). The hon. Member will find details of the principal factors giving rise to these changes in these returns.

If the hon. Member cannot recognise those figures, perhaps he can recognise some simple ones. Will he agree that the National Debt has risen £2,000 million since 1951 and has gone up each year substantially, except for two years, since that date? What is he doing about that, and why is he so tolerant about the situation?

One simple fact that I certainly recognise is that in the years in question a major element was the borrowing requirement of the nationalised industries, £574 million and £386 million, respectively. As the hon. Member and the House will be well aware, we have had an extremely low borrowing requirement in each of the last two Budgets.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not claiming that the £2,000 million over the last eleven years can be attributed to the nationalised industries?

All I am saying is that hon. Members opposite greatly underrate the effects of the borrowing of the nationalised industries, both on the increase in the National Debt in this period and also on the difficulties which we had in managing the monetary system.

Are not the Government responsible for this? Is it not their liability and their responsibility? Does not the Financial Secretary recall the Prime Minister warning the country in 1959 that a vote for the Labour Government would mean an expenditure of an extra £1,000 million in the lifetime of the next Parliament? Does he realise that he has already exceeded that figure in 31 years? May I congratulate him on that record?

The hon. Gentleman need not be so rhetorical about this. Certainly we recognise responsibility. It is because of the figures which I have given to the House that my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced two successive Budgets, in 1961 and 1962, which have reduced the borrowing requirements to a very small figure indeed, as the House is well aware.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the management expenses of the National Debt during the three years ended 31st March, 1961, have been two to three times the cost of management in the year ended 31st March, 1958; and what was the cost of management and expenses for the last financial year.

The management expenses of the National Debt, as defined by statute, include cash payments on conversion of stocks and Premium Savings Bonds prize money. These two items account for the substantial increase to which the hon. Member refers. The cost of management in the year ending 31st March, 1962, was £33·6 million. This included the expenses of the Post Office in managing National Savings securities which hitherto had been borne on the Post Office Vote.

Perhaps the Financial Secretary can recognise that this is 2½ times what it was the year before. Is he quite satisfied with the fact that the management expenses and the interest on the National Debt are now running at approximately £1,000 million?

The hon. Member ought to recognise that the size of this item is not affected by interest rates and, secondly, that it is hardly unreasonable since even in 1961–62 the charge was less than per cent. of the total debt outstanding. I do not think that that is a figure to be ashamed of.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information has been obtained, in the course of current negotiations, concerning the income which was derived from the six countries of the European Economic Community in Customs and Excise during the last complete year for which figures are available.

About £40 million, on the assumption that the hon. Member has in mind the Customs revenue arising from the protective duties on imports from Common Market countries.

Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the economies in national expenditure which will be required when that income is denied to us when we enter the Common Market?

The figures I have given to the House are those in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I must say that the figures I have given represent less than 1½ per cent. of the total Customs and Excise revenue and must be viewed in relation to all the other consequences which could follow from our membership of the Community.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to Recommendation 317 (1962) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the protection of private foreign investments in developing countries; if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give full support to the international efforts being made to draw up a multilateral investment convention to provide such protection to investors; and if he will examine the possibility of instituting an international guarantee fund against non-commercial risks.

I have seen the recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers and can assure him that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the attempt in the O.E.C.D. to draft an international convention for the protection of foreign property. The question of an international guarantee fund against non-commercial risks is at present under consideration in the Development Assistance Committee of the O.E.C.D. and Her Majesty's Government is, of course, taking part in this consideration.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Should either of these two international initiatives prove abortive, would he, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, support a purely Commonwealth initiative to give protection to private investors in Commonwealth developing countries against purely non-commercial risks?

I would rather not go further than I have this afternoon. We have every reason to hope that agreement will shortly he reached on the text of a draft convention. But, in the event of what my hon. Friend says, of course we will consider that and any other reasonable proposal.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this consideration is also covering the unequal distribution of investment, resulting in the fact that where there are profitable minerals investments are heavy, while other countries which need them most are being starved of investments?

That supplementary question takes us rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I should be glad to make any inquiries I could to help the hon. Gentleman with the information which he seeks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to authorise British building societies to invest a small proportion of their surplus funds in Australian house mortgages, if they so wish, in order to aid British immigrants to Australia.

No, Sir. It is still the Government's view that this would not be an appropriate way to meet the need which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that permission to advance money in this way would be acceptable to some of the leading British building societies, would be very much welcomed by the Australian Government, and would be of tremendous assistance to British immigrants in Australia, some of whom have to wait more than a year before they even get on a housing waiting list? Why is the Treasury so reluctant to be helpful when this could be done at no cost to the British taxpayer and could be done so easily through building societies, as we urged at the time of the Building Societies Act, 1960?

I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this subject, which can hardly he dealt with adequately by question and answer. The Government's views were fully stated by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary during the debates on the Building Societies Act two years ago, and in the Government's view nothing has happened since to justify changing their policy.

Would my hon. Friend like another Adjournment debate on this matter? Why is it not possible to do something? This proposal would be some way of meeting the needs of immigrants and of providing finance for housing, and is something which the Government should not shelve with Civil Service answers.

There is a difficulty about having an Adjournment debate because of debating something involving legislation, but I do not want to ride out on that unfairly. If my hon. Friend wishes to talk about this, either my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or I would be glad to discuss it with him and his hon. Friends.

If building societies have surplus funds, should they not be encouraged to use them to help those in desperate need of housing in this country to acquire their own houses?

I do not want to debate the matter now, but the surplus funds of building societies are intended to be their liquid assets. That was the point of my hon. Friend's speech. But I do not think that we can pursue the matter much further today.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract new industry to the Crook area, County Durham, to provide jobs for those who have lost their employment owing to pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

The Board of Trade will continue to make every effort to encourage industrial development in the Crook area. The facilities of the Local Employment Act are available for any firms willing to set up or expand in the locality.

I am profoundly disappointed with that reply. Is the Minister aware of the ineffectiveness of the Local Employment Act in comparison with the degree of justice contained in the Distribution of Industry Act, which did seek to apportion industries to the needs of the population? Is the Minister aware that conditions in this area are worse than they were in the 1930s? Then there was a possibility that the basic industries would pick up, but those industries have now gone, and 2,500 of the population in this area are looking to the Government for work.

I appreciate the difficulties and anxieties of the area. We have been doing our best to bring the firms there. In the last few months between 15 and 20 firms have been recommended to go to the area, and half a dozen have visited it. In the end, it is for the firms themselves to choose where they should go.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to encourage the development of British engines for rotary type lawn mowers.

None by the Government, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I went to the Chelsea Flower Show I was amazed to find that half of the British rotary lawn movers have American engines? What is the Board of Trade doing to help develop a British engine for these lawn mowers?

This is primarily a matter for the industry itself to consider, but the Board of Trade will be quite willing to look into the question and to see the extent of the dependence on imported materials, if my hon. Friend wishes.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will re-schedule the area of Llanelly and district under the provisions of the Local Employment Act, 1960, in view of the increase in unemployment in the area and the further increase consequent upon the closing of the Bynea steel works and the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey.

Yes, Sir. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend, Llanelly is again threatened with high unemployment which is likely to persist. He has therefore decided, after consultation with the Minister for Welsh Affairs, to restore it to the list of development districts.

Since some time must elapse between the re-scheduling of an area and the establishment there of new industries, will the hon. Member in the meantime take steps, with his colleagues the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Power, to prevent or postpone the closure of the Royal Ordnance Factory, where, between now and the end of the year, 800 men will be made redundant, and the Bynea Steel Works, where 750 men will be made redundant? Will he bear in mind that in both cases half of those who will be rendered redundant are over 50 years of age, and that this is becoming one of the most urgent problems in this and similar areas where redundancy exists?

I am aware of the problem of the factory at Pembrey, which has been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, but I am prepared to ask him to look at it again.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the news of the decision that he has announced will be received with satisfaction in areas in South Wales which are not affected like Llanelly? They recognise that this area of Wales has a short-term problem, which we hope will be settled very shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will include Sunderland in the list of development districts eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Act.

No, Sir. The employment prospects in Sunderland are such that my right hon. Friend would not be justified in accepting further applications for financial assistance.

Is the Minister aware that for five years we have had more than 5 per cent. unemployed, and that we still have that percentage? Is he further aware that no one in Sunderland can understand wily we have been divorced entirely from Government aid?

A large number of firms are constructing there and taking on workers. There are more jobs in prospect there than there are unemployed.

We shall have to wait until 1965 before we get this new employment, most of which will have been provided by the local authority. We are still awaiting aid from the Government. The prospects for our major industry of shipbuilding are such that we must expect more unemployment in the next few years.

What the hon. Member says is quite untrue. These firms have received considerable aid from the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the people of Sunderland understand that the Government have done a lot for the town?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on resale price maintenance.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is still studying the subject.

Can the Minister at least tell us when the Government intend to say something about their views on Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Are we to take it, from the lengthy examination which is going on and from the Prime Minister's statement on Saturday, that the Government are going to change their mind on that Section of the Act, passed only six years ago?

I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend may make.

Is the Minister aware that British pharmacists are gravely concerned about this question of interfering with their present price system? Will he give serious consideration to their representations?

Yes, Sir. Many interests are involved in this question—manufacturers, retailers and consumers. We are giving careful consideration to them, among other factors.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been issued for the provision of Handley-Page bombing aircraft to the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

It is not the practice to disclose details of export licences for the supply of defence equipment to other Governments.

Has the hon. Member seen the statement in the Press that licences have been given for the provision of these bombers? Will not the Government consider adopting a policy of ensuring that no more armaments will be sent to the Republic of South Africa while it continues its present policy of apartheid?

I am not responsible for statements that appear in the Press. Questions of Her Majesty's Government's policy on arms exports to South Africa should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to protect the consumer from short weight in smokeless fuels due to undersizing and excessive moisture, as recommended by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution.

My right hon. Friend is bearing this matter in mind in connection with the weights and measures legislation which the Government intend to introduce as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

In view of the fact that these moisture contents are extremely high and cause a serious loss to the consumer, is there anything which my hon. Friend's Department can do, in conjunction with the Ministry of Power, to put an end to this abuse?

My information is that the moisture contents are not particularly high. The B.S.I. specification for open fire gas coke is between 9 per cent, and 12 per cent. at the point of production. When complaints have been made it has been generally found that that percentage has not been exceeded.

In view of the fact that we are never likely to get any weights and measures legislation from this Government, will the Minister bear in mind that what is needed here are standards, designations and specifications, which would hardly come within the provisions of weights and measures legislation, but which should come under his Department?

The hon. Member is quite right, in that part of this subject deals with quality rather than quantity, but I do not accept his premise.

Although B.S.I. specifications are laid down at the point of production, is it not true that this coke can sometimes lie about in merchants' yards and absorb a large quantity of moisture so that, at the point of sale, it has a moisture content very much higher than the 12 per cent. mentioned in the B.S.I. standard?

I am informed that once it has been quenched at the works coke absorbs substantial amounts of water only when it is stored in small quantities, and particularly when it is exposed to rain or snow.[Laughter.] I get this information from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. A provision was contained in the Weights and Measures Bill making it an offence for anyone to damp solid fuel with intent to deceive or defraud. It would be an extremely expensive business to provide covered protection for all solid fuels stored outside.

After that very profound statement, would not the hon. Member also bear in mind the fact that more and more local authorities are introducing smokeless zones and that, therefore, more and more people have to buy smokeless fuels? The cost of these fuels is already high. Is it not therefore essential that when people buy them they should at least know what weights they are buying? Should not the Government do something urgently at least to deal with this aspect of weights and measures legislation rather than to keep fobbing us off with a statement that we may have a Weights and Measures Bill this year, next year, some time, never?

We have to have regard to what is practical both as regards time and as regards the possible content of legislation.

Cannot the Minister go further? Has not he read the report which was circulated to all hon. Members last week on this subject showing the great variety in the value which the consumer gets for what he purchases? Has he no remedy when the moisture content might deprive him of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of what he has paid for? Cannot the Government take action in advance of their ill-fated Weights and Measures Bill?

It is not true to say that the consumer has no protection in any part of the country. There are a number of local Acts which cover the matter on the lines of the provision which was included in the Weights and Measures Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the United States Government in regard to the tariff concessions proposed to be made by both the United States and the Common Market countries through a reciprocal agreement; and what representations he has made to the United States Government and the Common Market countries in regard to an extension of the agreement to exports from the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom not joining the Common Market.

No representations to the Governments concerned are necessary. Under the most-favourednation principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any tariff concessions exchanged between the United States and the European Economic Community are extended to our exports.

Is it, then, the fact that if the United States were to make an agreement with the Common Market countries and the United Kingdom were not a member of the Community the tariff reductions made by the United States and the Common Market countries would be automatically extended to British exports?

Yes, Sir.

Then what is the point in joining the Common Market?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government has yet decided its policy toward industrial mergers and monopolies.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he doubts whether the comprehensive review of policy and legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices will be completed before the end of the year. He will also need time to study the results of the review.

As it is now six months since we debated the question of I.C.I. and Courtaulds and the whole question of mergers, is not this a subject on which the Board of Trade can tell us how soon it will take a decision?

No, Sir. I am not in a position to make a statement.

While recognising that every industrial merger is not necessarily contrary to the economic interests of the country, will the hon. Gentleman agree that a number of mergers are tending to create a monopoly and neither the Monopolies Commission nor the Restrictive Trade Practices Court are constituted to deal with this problem? There is a gap in the law, as I have pointed out before. Is it the intention of the Government to do anything about it?

Those are precisely the questions which are being studied at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the Uganda constitutional conference.

The conference is still in session. I hope that it will shortly complete its work and that I shall soon be able to report to the House on what has taken place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he is to take any initiative on the question of the lost counties?

I am doing my best to find a solution to this problem, but it is not an easy one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the West Indies common service conference will take place; and what arrangements will be made for representatives from the smaller islands.

The Interim Commissioner for the West Indies has convened this conference for Tuesday, 10th July, in Port of Spain. He has invited the Governments of all the unit territories of the former Federation to be represented, together with the Governments of the Bahamas, British Honduras, British Guiana and the British Virgin Islands.

While welcoming the expedition with which the conference has been called, may I ask if the Secretary of State is doing all he can to encourage the smaller islands to present a common front and to give themselves the best possible start for a future federation?

I am all in favour of that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the situation in Grenada.

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement issued by the Colonial Office on the 18th June.

I have taken this action with very great regret and only because the Chief Minister of Grenada left me with no alternative. Not only did he do all in his power to prevent the inquiry being held; but his comments on the Report also showed that he completely failed to appreciate the seriousness of its findings. The only conclusion I could draw, therefore, was that if he remained in office under the constitution then in force, the same financial malpractices and the same threats against the Civil Service would continue. This is a situation which I cannot accept as long as I am responsible for good government in Grenada and for the proper expenditure of United Kingdom moneys provided for the territory.

I very much hope, however, that it will be possible to hold fresh elections in Grenada in the fairly near future and that the normal course of constitutional development can shortly be resumed.

While deeply regretting the circumstances which have made the Colonial Secretary feel it necessary to take this action, may I ask what representations he has heard from other Governments of the projected Little Eight Federation concerning the action he has taken? Is he yet in a position to say when the elections may be held so that Grenada can revert to some form of constitutional government?

I have had protests from a number of Governments in the area. On the whole, I think that public opinion as reflected in the Press respects and understands the action we have taken. As to future elections, there will be no unreasonable delay.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not the courts in the West Indies have yet decided on the legality or not of the original inquiry, which I believe was under consideration? Secondly, can he say whether or not it is intended to take any form of legal proceedings against any of those who have been implicated in these matters?

On the first point, we had a clear indication from the courts that we should proceed with the holding of this commission of inquiry. On the second point, I do not intend to take any other proceedings. I think that what we have done was both necessary and adequate.

In view of the drastic steps the Minister has taken, the seriousness of the position and the difficulty of dealing with it by Question and Answer, will he talk to the Leader of the House to see if time can be devoted to a short debate on this matter so that there may be some real clarification?

Of course, I will talk to my right hon. Friend about that, but I thought the position was on the whole fairly clear.