asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the extra cost in 1963–64 of counting pre-1949 service in full in calculating Civil Service pensions.

Seven and a half million pounds in respect of both continuing pensions and lump sums, and a further sum up to £24 million if lump sum payments already made were reassessed.

Now that a slightly More generous attitude appears to be prevailing at the Treasury, would it not be a good idea to take the opportunity of doing this in conjunction with the other measures to increase Civil Service pensions?

I do not think so, because at the time when this service was rendered there was no expectation that it would be allowed to count for more than half its length on subsequent establishment. Although the hon. Member refers to the extra cost in 1963–64, we would have to consider the total continuing cost, which would be about £300 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate annual cost of a Press cuttings service for Members of Parliament, employing eight assistants; and if he will consider providing such a service.

Six thousand pounds. The introduction of a Press cuttings service is a matter for the House authorities in the first place.

Would not this be a small sum to pay for the better working of Members of Parliament, Parliament itself and democracy? If serious newspapers are not expected to function without such a Press cuttings service, surely Parliament should not be expected to do so? Does not the hon. Member think that the dice are loaded against private Members of Parliament, who have no such assistance, whereas Ministers not only have a Press cuttings service but staffs of expert civil servants to brief them?

I am sure that the dice are not loaded against the hon. Member. As I mentioned in my original Answer, this is a matter for the House authorities in the first place. Certainly on the information which I have at the moment I feel very doubtful whether we should be justified in incurring this additional cost at the expense of the taxpayer.

Will my hon. Friend investigate an anomaly in this field? Whereas a Member of Parliament who has a Press cuttings service personally is not allowed to charge the cost of it against his Schedule E Income Tax assessment, he can so charge it against Schedule D, as a self-employed person, if he is participating in television, radio and journalistic activities.

I will look into my hon. Friend's personal case and write to him about it.

I do both. That is the point.

The hon. Member says that this is the matter for the House to consider first. Is he aware that when the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was Chancellor of the Exchequer he promised to give serious consideration to the purchase of the News Chronicle Press Service for use as a pooled service available to the 24 Government Departmental libraries and the House of Commons Library? Can the hon. Member say what happened to that consideration?

That is another matter, which I will look into. I will write to the hon. Member about it.

In spite of the amusement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he bear in mind that Members of Parliament, as such, are not entitled even to charge the expense of books, including reference books, or any form of information which they may require in relation to their duties? When I was in active practice as a solicitor all this could be charged to my office.

Against Schedule D.

This applies to a great many things. Will the Minister look into the matter? It is an astonishing fact that I can take a client to dine in the House of Commons, if that client has no special connection with the House, but that if the Mayor of Oldham dines with me the cost is not allowable.

In general, the attitude of the Inland Revenue to these matters is very reasonable. I cannot be expected to answer these supplementary questions on a Question which has nothing whatever to do with tax allowances for Members of Parliament.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many places he expects will be provided in universities by 1966.

The target is 150,000 places in the academic year 1966–67.

In view of the continuing dissatisfaction of a number of universities with the grants announced earlier this year, despite the 20 per cent. increase in the building grant, is the hon. Gentleman certain that this target can be achieved? Is he not aware, further, that if it is achieved it will be totally inadequate, because it is clear that at least 185,000 students will be looking for places? In view of this fact, will not he reverse the disastrous policy of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), of awaiting the report of the Robbins Committee and, instead, announce at once a further measure of expansion in our universities?

No, Sir. We would be wise to await the report of the Robbins Committee. As for the target of 150,000 places, we certainly expect to reach it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are his latest estimates, as advised by the University Grants Committee, on the total number of university places required in the next five years to meet increasing needs and demands; and how far these estimates provide for an increasing proportion of sixth formers to enter universities:

I have nothing to add to the targets of student numbers already announced by the Government and the statements on this matter and the level of grants made by my right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary and by myself.

Does not the Treasury study the experience from year to year? Is not the Financial Secretary aware of the grave and widespread disappointment among potential students for university places? Is he aware of the increasing demand for university places and the fact that a large number who had many advance passes at G.C.E. level and applied to get into a university at the end of the last academic year were unable to do so because the Government had reduced the expansion of the number of places? Has not that been studied?

I fear that there will always be some potential students who will not be successful. Of course we recognise the increasing demand for places at universities. For this reason we have decided that over the next five years we shall set a target of 150,000 places, which is a 35 per cent. increase on 1961.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this target, according to the vice-chancellors of universities, will not even be reached? Is he aware that the target is far too low and that even by 1970 there will be young men and women fully and well qualified to enter universities who will be knocking at the door and there will be no room for them? Does that not worry the Government?

As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we expect to reach the target. I ask the hon. Lady to bear in mind that when considering the expansion of higher education we must consider not only the places in universities but also the large number of additional places which we shall be providing in colleges of advanced technology and teacher training colleges?

Does not the Minister think it rather farcical that the Government should be so complacent about this matter? Is not he aware that, according to figures supplied by his own Department, the ratio is 1–19 of the relevant age groups for university places and that in five years' time it will me 1–22? Is not that rather disgusting?

If one takes into account the numbers we expect in all the spheres of higher education in five years' time, the proportion entering higher education will have increased, I estimate, by at least another 1 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the financial policies of building societies.

No, Sir.

Is not this one of the major sectors in the economy in which the public interest has no control? Does it not interfere with my right hon. Friend's policy of lowering interest rates, and is he satisfied with this position?

As I think my hon. Friend will remember, because I think he was a Member of the Committee which considered it, the Building Societies Bill, which we passed in 1960, introduced a fundamental change in the law governing the accounts and audits of building societies, which I think has proved to be generally satisfactory. With regard to interest rates, in the end I think the rates of interest on mortgages must remain a matter for settlement between a society and its borrowers, because, apart from other matters, the circumstances of individual societies vary.

Is it not a fact that a major plank of Conservative policy is home ownership, and is it not pretty serious in these days for young people who want to buy their own homes to find that they cannot do so because of the very high rates of interest for mortgages?

I recognise the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not think the right way to tackle them would be to do something which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would amount almost to the nationalisation of the building societies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control the rates of interest charged on mortgages by building societies.

No, Sir.

Why do the Government continue to ignore the harsh burden of high mortgage interest on one of the thriftiest sections of the population, a rate of interest which goes up very quickly on the slightest provocation and comes down all too slowly? Will the hon. Gentleman at least commend the two or three building societies which, disregarding the advice of the Building Societies Association and following the good example of the Public Works Loan Board, have recently reduced their charges?

As I said, in the end the decision on these matters must rest with individual societies because they have to take into account their own local circumstances and financial position.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the rates of interest recommended by the Building Societies Association have kept pace with the reduction in the Bank rate?

That is not a matter for me as a member of the Government to answer.

The Minister said that it is not a matter for him, but does he not realise that the rates at present charged by the building societies are frustrating the Government's stated intention of encouraging home ownership? Therefore, is it not a matter for him when some building societies reduce the rate of interest and others do not? Does it not warrant some inquiry from him as to the reasons?

I am delighted, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is delighted, when any particular society is able to reduce its rate of interest, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the Government are not encouraging home ownership and that a considerable increase in home ownership is not taking place. To say so is to ignore the facts.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to implement the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government to abolish liability to Income Tax, Schedule A, in 1963–64 for owner-occupiers of dwelling houses.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 6th November to the Question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke).

Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is on the same wavelength as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)? Does he propose to honour and implement fully the undertaking given by the previous Chancellor that Income Tax, Schedule A, as applicable to domestic hereditaments only, will be totally abolished in 1963–64? That is the nub of the matter, and my right hon. Friend did not answer that specific point before.

I answered it precisely in the Answer to which I have referred.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the £25 million Steel Company of Wales 5¾ per cent. second debenture stock was offered at 88½ per cent. in view of the fact that it is redeemable at 102 per cent.; how much loss this sale will show on the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency's books; and if he will make a statement.

The offer for sale of this stock was made by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in accordance with its statutory duty to secure the return of the steel industry to private ownership. Prior to the sale the Agency's book value of their investment in the company amounted to £27·025 million. The gross proceeds of the present offer will amount to £22·125 million.

Why should the Agency accept this big loss—that is the Question which I put—if there is any chance of Bank Rate coming down in the near future and of this stock being offered at a much higher price than at the big discount of 11½ points, at which it was put on the market? Why should the taxpayer pay all this money?

I cannot comment on future movements of Bank Rate, but this stock was offered at market value, and I think that market experience since has proved that it was about the right figure.

Will not the Chancellor answer the question why this stock was put on the market at this time, considering that the Act has been on the Statute Book for nine years? Why choose this moment to involve the taxpayer in a substantial loss?

The loss did not arise on the sale. The loss had already arisen because the market value had fallen. The Agency has a statutory duty progressively to dispose of the nationalised holdings, and this it is doing.

If there is any chance at all within a reasonable time of Bank Rate being reduced, this stock could have been offered, if not at par, at least at a smaller rate of interest? If the Chancellor is saying that conditions are such that Bank Rate will not be reduced, we must accept it as a somewhat unnecessary sacrifice by the taxpayers.

I do not think the Agency should speculate on future movements of Bank Rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

I have no statement to make on this matter at present.

Cannot the Chancellor tell us for how much longer he expects this organisation to go on operating at the public expense?

No, Sir. There is work still for it to do, and I do not think that at this moment I can anticipate when it will be completed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revised estimated yield of Purchase Tax in 1962–63; and how much yield is expected in that year from each, respectively, of the 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 25 per cent., and 45 per cent. rates of Purchase Tax, all figures expressed after the reduction of Purchase Tax on motorcars from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent.

The revised Purchase Tax estimate for 1962–63 is £597 million. The anticipated yields from the individual rates requested by the hon. Member are £157 million; £30 million; £199 million and £211 million, respectively.

Would my right hon. Friend consider the special position which now arises with those manufactured goods which remain on the 45 per cent. rate of Purchase Tax since he removed motor cars from it? Does he not regard, for instance, radios, television sets, cosmetics, and gramophones and discs as having an equally relative export potential as motor cars, and why should these important products be left out on a limb at the highest rates, while motor cars have been preferred by my right hon. Friend?

I explained to the House my reasons for the special move in the case of motor cars, which I think was fully justified. As far as the other items on the 45 per cent. rate are con- corned, I shall be reviewing the whole Purchase Tax situation in connection with my forthcoming Budget.

Jolly good. I shall ask my right hon. Friend a lot more Questions about that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made since 1954 towards doubling the nation's standard of living within 25 years.

Between 1954 and 1961, the rise of real personal disposable income per head, which is the best statistical definition of the standard of living, has been at the rate of 3·3 per cent. per annum. This is a somewhat faster rate than would be required to double the standard of living in 25 years.

While I am sure that the Government are to be congratulated from all sides of the House, may I ask if my right hon. Friend does not agree that if this target is to be achieved one essential is that hon. Members opposite should remain opposite?

That is, I think, demonstrable.

Is the Chancellor aware that the target which he has set up for "Neddy" will not maintain a rate of growth sufficient to double the standard of living in 25 years?

This question was concerned with the experience between 1954–61, and as I was not responsible at that period, I can happily say it was very good.

Do not these figures show how unwise it is to rely on statistics in determining whether people are feeling better off or not? How does the Chancellor account for the fact that if we have "never had it so good" there is a widespread feeling in the country that conditions are exceedingly difficult, especially for certain groups of people who have never had it so bad, including the unemployed and the old-age pensioners?

Of course, in any general average, there are bound to be particular areas of the country or sections of people who are not up to that average, but this Question was about the average, and I have given an accurate Answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the increased spending on public services of 9 per cent. this year and of a further 9 per cent. next year as foreshadowed in Command Paper No. 1849, and the expected increase of national production of only 3 per cent. each year, what new steps he proposes to take to avoid further inflation; and if he will make a statement.

The increase in expenditure to which my hon. Friend refers relates to investment in the public services, not to total expenditure on these services. The Government took the decision to authorise this increase in expenditure after considering the ability of the economy to absorb it without inflationary consequences.

Does not the Chancellor agree that more than half of this capital expenditure shown on page 5 will be non-productive work? Does it mean that the Government, by accepting this, are accepting inflation as inevitable?

No, Sir; certainly not. We thought, in view of the prospects for 1963, we could without danger of inflation increase public investment, particularly on such things as housing and schools, where I think it is very much needed.

But if my right hon. Friend expects national productivity to increase only by that 3 per cent., at the most, if we are to spend 9 per cent. more on special items of non-productive work, surely it must result in inflation?

We have to take all claims on the national economy together, and I think we can safely accommodate this increase without inflationary pressure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he made, before taking his decision to cut Purchase Tax on cars by 20 per cent., of the likely effect of this on the annual deficit of British Railways.

Before reaching my decision, I took into account all relevant factors.

Would the Chancellor say, then, what in fact was the result of his consideration, vis-à-vis the railways, because surely the task which the Government has set Dr. Beeching is difficult enough as it is and this decision will make it even more difficult?

After my consideration, I came to the conclusion that the possible effect on the railways should not deter me from doing the right thing in the case of motor cars.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of his Department's responsibilities for training in the Civil Service, why fewer than half the juveniles in the Treasury are attending day release classes.

Every encouragement is given to Treasury staff under age 18 to attend day release classes. Attendance is, of course, largely voluntary, but we are constantly seeking to increase it.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman do better? Should we not expect the right hon. Gentleman's Department to set a better example to other Departments and to stimulate day release classes? How is it that some Departments can manage 80 per cent. to 100 per cent. day releases while the Service Departments are below two-thirds?

There are special reasons for the figures within the Treasury. It is because the type of officer we employ there is somewhat different from those in other Departments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can to increase the proportion of those who do attend day release classes and that our objective is the same as his.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the people employed in his Department differ from those in other Departments? Can he also tell us whether he is satisfied that it is his duty not only to release those who voluntarily go to these classes but to shove and to push people into wanting to go and making it much easier for them to take advantage of the classes?

The position is that in most other Departments there is a large proportion of what I might call "junior executive officers". In the Treasury we have a very high proportion in the age groups to which the hon. Gentleman refers of typists and other people who, although they do not attend day release classes, do attend evening classes. Therefore, there is an explanation for the difference in the figures between the Treasury and other Departments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a survey of what products, needed by the developing countries of the world, can be manufactured by under-utilised resources in central Scotland.

In considering loan applications from developing countries it is certainly my intention that we should take into account, among other considerations, the extent to which the loan could be spent on products for which spare capacity exists in the economy, whether in central Scotland or elsewhere. But I do not consider that any special surveys are necessary for this purpose.

When considering this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the needs of the papermaking industry in relation to the request of the Delhi Report for paper for educational purposes in the developing countries?

I will certainly look at any suggestion such as that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to make any changes in the rates of Purchase Tax on footwear in February or August, instead of April, in accordance with the proposals of which details have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Poole.

No, Sir. I could not undertake an obligation to do this.

Will my right hon. Friend view the problem with more sympathy if I send him more evidence?

I will certainly try to do so, but to preclude myself from action in the Budget on Purchase Tax would be very difficult.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he ought to have any Purchase Tax at all on boots and shoes when he has reduced Purchase Tax on motor cars?

I shall naturally consider all aspects of Purchase Tax between now and the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance he plans to give the University Grants Committee so that the recent deterioration in the university staff-student ratio in the pure and applied sciences may he checked, and a ratio more comparable with pre-1939 standards attained.

The Government have undertaken to review the level of grant in 1964. They will then have the benefit of the Report of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education and will be in a position to assess the development of the present expansion programme the level of grants for which, as explained by my right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary, has been assessed primarily with the aim of increasing student numbers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the University Grants Cornmittee says that staffing compared with 1938–39 is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. under what it ought to be? How does he expect to be able to reach the target he has set himself without diluting the quality of teaching if he does not get the staff required for this purpose?

I do not think one can pass judgment on this mattes by a comparison with what happened in 1939, as the hon. Gentleman did in his Question and in his supplementary question. After all, since then there have been great changes, for example, in the number of students, the methods of teaching and in graduate and post-graduate work research, all of which is bound to affect the student-teacher relationship.

If the hon. Gentleman does not like the period 1938–39, will he accept the period 1955–56, where the science ratio is still declining?

Obviously this is a matter which is highly relevant, and we bear it in mind. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that expansion plans already announced involve an increase in public expenditure on universities from £116 million in 1961–62 to something over £160 million in 1966–67.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the present Common Market negotiations, he will make an early decision about the proposed change to a decimal system of currency.

I think we should await the report of the Halsbury Committee.

Is not it regrettable that this decision has been delayed for so long? Is it impossible for the Committee to give some interim advice to enable my right hon. Friend to come to an earlier decision?

We hope that the Committee will be in a position to report early next year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise a reduction in the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities who wish to borrow money.

These rates are determined by the rates at which local authorities can borrow in the market.

That is just the reply which I anticipated I should receive. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a severe injustice to local authorities who have to cater for the community as a whole? All the essential services are operated on a non-profit basis, but they have to pay the same rate of interest as commercial undertakings? Does not he appreciate that such a grave injustice has never been more unwarranted and that it is time the position was altered?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the question of local authority borrowing is at present being reviewed. I would only remind him that the present rates on borrowings from the Public Works Loan Board came into force in October and that the rates have been reduced five times since the beginning of April of this year.

Does the Government wish to see an increase or a decrease in council house building?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt with this point only a short time ago and said that he did not expect any difficulty in reaching his target on this account.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider giving local authorities freedom to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board? Is he aware that local authorities are allowed to go to to the Board only if they cannot obtain money in the private market?

On many occasions at this Box I have explained what, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—the present policy of the Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the current review of local authority borrowing which is now taking place.

Is there any hope of getting the Bank Rate down by 1 per cent. in the near future and so helping all these problems?

I hardly think that my hon. Friend would expect me to answer that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the telegram addressed to him by Mr. Kenneth Shorrock, secretary of the Textile Action Group, calling for similar assistance to be given to the textile industry as he has recently given to the motor car industry be reducing Purchase Tax.

I have told Mr. Shorrock that have noted his representations and will bear them in mind.

While thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the motor car industry, to whose help he has just sprung so generously, has always enjoyed a high degree of protection, Whereas the cotton industry has been exposed to the most severe competition? On the basis of the principle he himself outlined for his action in respect of the motor industry, namely,

"to give stimulus where it is most needed with a particular eye on investment and exports".

I think the circumstances are quite different. Many textile piece goods and household textile goods are not charged to tax anyway. The tax on clothing is 10 per cent, and clothing sales are going up steadily.

Will the Chancellor bear in mind that in towns like Oldham, where mill after mill has been closed in the last few weeks, there are no alternative buildings available even if alternative industry were available? There is nothing we can do because of the physical restriction imposed on the firms and we have nowhere to accommodate the industry. The situation is growing grave and serious, and it is not enough to say that people can travel 20 miles across the Pennines or 40 miles across Lancashire where they may be able to obtain suitable employment. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again and not give the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), which in its expression sounded a little callous, or at least casual?

I have said, and I repeat, that I intend to review the whole Purchase Tax structure in connection with the forthcoming Budget. It would be unwise for me to say more.

Is the Chancellor aware that the rate of unemployment in Colne now is about 9·7 per cent. and the rate of unemployment in Nelson is scarcely less? Is he aware that those two towns depend almost entirely on the cotton industry for their living, which they are not now making, and that the people unemployed are in middle age and are not now able to learn new skills, quite apart from moving long distances elsewhere? Will he not treat this matter so lightly as he and all his colleagues in the Government have done for many years?

I am not treating it lightly at all, but I doubt whether the circumstances the hon. Member has referred to have any connection with Purchase Tax on clothing.

Of course they do.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet completed his consideration of the need for building advance factories in Aberdeen; and how many such factories he now plans to build, and for which industries.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for building advance factories in Aberdeen.

Is that not a terrible confession of failure? Does the hon. Gentleman know that this morning I received a letter showing that he is as bigoted and prejudiced as ever against the city of Aberdeen, notwithstanding representations made to various Ministers of the Crown when they visited Aberdeen, representations made by Aberdeen Trades Council and other representative bodies there? Will he get rid of that bigotry and prejudice against Aberdeen and supply us with advance factories which we need?

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that my right hon. Friend has no bigotry towards the city of Aberdeen, but in his view there are other parts of Scotland in which the need is greater.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a need as great as an advance factory in Aberdeen is to encourage existing industry to obtain a larger share of sub-contracting work from the industrial belt? Could he therefore say what his Department is doing to encourage this?

I can assure my hon. Friend that financial assistance under the Act is always available to firms in Aberdeen of whatever nature they are.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the economic benefit to Great Britain, and in particular to Scotland, resulting from the British Exhibition and Trade Fair held in Stockholm from 18th May to 3rd June. 1962.

United Kingdom exports to Sweden during the third quarter of 1962 were 11 per cent. higher than in the corresponding quarter of last year. Separate figures for Scotland are not available. The British Trade Fair was no doubt one of many factors which contributed to this result.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an instance of how many orders resulted from that festival or fair? Was all that money misspent by the Government? Has anything resulted for the benefit of Scotland? If it has, what steps is he taking, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, to provide a means of fulfilling any orders which have emanated from it?

I am not quite sure how many questions there were in that supplementary question. As the hon. and learned Member knows quite well, and as all hon. Members know, one cannot attribute specifically to a trade fair all the consequent increases in the subsequent year of exports which may be obtained for this country. It would be silly to try to attribute to one single activity an increase of the size I have given. British industry has indeed gone out and got the work in Sweden, and it has been supported in getting that work by this trade fair. I do not think it would be helpful to say more.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent fishing reels entering this country from Japan free of control; and if he will ensure that in future such imports are covered by the same licensing arrangements as apply in the case of all other items of fishing tackle and sports equipment.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, owing to a blunder in his Department four years ago, fishing reels are coming to this country under the guise of cotton reels? Is he also aware that there is a certain amount of slack trading in the fishing reel industry, which is largely situated in Redditch in my constituency? In view of this, will not he reconsider the matter and see that the ridiculous situation whereby fishing reels come into the country under the guise of cotton reels and cotton bobbins is done away with?

I think my hon. Friend is aware that fishing reels imported from Japan have been free of restrictions for as long ago as 1957—[Laughter.] Perhaps I may be permitted to continue. They come in under a definition covering reels and spools of all kinds. That was done in 1957, and we have since heard from one or two fishing reel manufacturers protests about these imports, but the trade association concerned has not produced any evidence in support of them, although it has been given the opportunity to do so. I am, of course, perfectly ready to consider any further practical considerations which may be made.

Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again if I send him evidence from the industry concerned?

I have already said that I will look at any fresh evidence which may be produced.

Is it not a pretty silly definition anyhow? Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman put some sense into it?

It is an international definition.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation during this session to amend the Companies Act, 1948, so as to control solicitation of money from the public.

Legislation will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary programme permits.

In view of the fact that my hon. Friend was sponsor to a Bill which I introduced in March, 1960, when the Economic Secretary told me that he hoped that legislation would be introduced during the next Session because the matter was urgent, would he please tell me what as soon "as possible" means?

My hon. Friend is old enough in the House to put his own interpretation on it. I can assure him that the delay is not due to the difficulty of framing legislation but to the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time.

Does the Minister appreciate that the Bill to which he originally gave his support may now be reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and myself in the form of private legislation and that our intentions in the matter will be very much affected by how soon "as soon as possible" is?

I shall communicate my hon. Friends anxiety to the Leader of the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what special instructions he has given his officials in the Swindon area; and what special steps he will take to assist men who will become redundant at the British Railways workshops by guiding new industries to Swindon which are able to use the skill and experience of these men, and the plant and premises which will no longer be used by British Railways.

No special action is needed to guide new industry to Swindon where, even allowing for the proposed railway workshops redundancy, the employment prospects are good. The Board of Trade will naturally have regard to the effects of this redundancy when considering applications for industrial development certificates in Swindon.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to take this complacent attitude, but is he not aware that there is a very grave problem facing some hundreds of men, particularly older craftsmen who are to he sacked next year and the year after that from the railway workshops? Is he aware that the alternative employment outlook is not so hot at the moment? Will he not look again at the whole question and consider going down there himself, or asking his right hon. Friend to do so, in order to look at the situation on the spot?

I can assure the hon. Member that we shall look sympathetically at applications for development, but—I must add the proviso—only applications which cannot go to development districts. We cannot undertake to guide new industry to the area while the needs of the development districts are so pressing.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise the real problem in these areas where railway workshops and other similar workshops are closing down completely and many of the older men are not equipped to take other jobs? Has he any plans for rehabilitation units in those areas to which the Government can recommend these men to go in order that they may take up suitable work in the area?

The hon. Member knows that in my constituency capacity I am extremely well aware of this problem. He also knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in one or two instances is proposing to set up retraining units to do just what the hon. Member has been asking.

In Swindon?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, may I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the compulsory registration of travel agents.

My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that such legislation is necessary.

Has my hon. Friend and his Department made any estimate of the loss occasioned to members of the public by the absence of such protection?

As in all walks of life, there are one or two black sheep in this profession, but I am not satisfied that the conduct of travel agents in general is wrong. Where there are very rare exceptions, the number is very small in relation to the total number involved.