asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what discussions she has recently had with the Post Office Users' Consultative Committee.

My Department is in regular contact with the Post Office Users' National Council on issues of concern to the consumer.

Is the Minister aware that the public are at present totally disillusioned with the service that the Post Office is offering and, indeed, with the Government's handling of the recent price increases? As a result of the hon. Gentleman's negotiations with the Post Office Users' National Council is he able to tell the House that the inquiry into the Post Office will be a comprehensive one, and not merely another one of the whitewashes that we have come to expect from the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my Department took part in the original discussions on the POUNC report and, indeed, I think that we can claim that we had some influence in having it decided that there would be an inquiry. Obviously we want the inquiry to be a reasonable and wide-ranging inquiry, and we have no interest in participating in a whitewash.

Does my hon. Friend realise what a terrible blow it is to old-age pensioners to have to pay 6½p for second-class post for Christmas cards or 8½p for first-class postage on cards? Would the heavens really fall in if the Post Office allowed old-age pensioners a concession on this so that they do not have to spend those large amounts?

I fully understand the sympathetic motives which prompt my hon. Friend's question. He will bear in mind that this is not the responsibility of my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Industry—

Buck passing.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen for a moment. He should bear in mind when considering the announcement by the Post Office in which it said that it was unable to give the concession for which he asked that about an extra 60 million Christmas cards would need to be posted in order to make up the lost revenue that the Post Office anticipates, and this would still not cover the extra administrative costs.

I declare my interest as a member of POUNC. Does the Minister accept than POUNC has been pressing without success for more than three years for this concessionary rate for Christmas cards and the Post Office has refused to carry out a proper experiment? Concerning the inquiry, will the Minister agree to consult POUNC before finalising the terms of reference?

The hon. Gentleman is very helpful in making that point. It is five years since POUNC put forward that recommendation. In three of those five years the Conservative Party was in Government and chose not to implement the recommendation. Now we have a sudden deluge of tears and sympathy from Opposition Members who hardly noticed the recommendation in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will ask the appropriate consumer advisory council to investigate the 100 per cent. increase in standing charges for gas and electricity introduced in September by Birmingham City Council.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Heating and Rent Payment (HARP) scheme, under which elderly tenants can spread their fuel costs over a year by making a fixed payment for heating, which is collected with the rent. The scheme is entirely optional, and the Birmingham City Council is responsible for payment of the total cost of the fuel consumed under the scheme. I understand that the recent increases were made to reduce the substantial deficits that have arisen since the scheme was introduced in December 1973. The Price Commission has looked into them and has found no reason to intervene.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an essential feature of the Government's counter-inflation policy that there should be rigorous restraint on prices as well as on incomes? Is he satisfied with the behaviour of the public corporations in relation to prices to consumers? This is one example that is simply not helping the counter-inflation policy one iota.

I am aware of the general considerations which my hon. Friend has brought forward, but he will be aware that Birmingham City Council was faced with a substantial deficit, which it was not permitted to allow on the rate fund, beyond that for which provision was made. It was therefore necessary to review the charges to the tenants to prevent there being a deficiency over and above the contingency fund.

In view of the shattering rate of inflation in the public sector and the increasing burden of price increases that have been imposed upon consumers, will the Minister wake up to the seriousness of the problem? [Interruption.] It is nothing to do with the deficit, as the Price Commission has made clear. Will the Minister immediately institute an investigation in order to establish the reason for these very high costs in the public sector and precisely why they are so much higher in the public sector than in the private sector?

The hon. Lady appears to be talking about something other than what is involved in this Question. There is a specific Question later on the Order Paper about the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has yet received the report of the National Consumer Council on the work of the consumer consultative organisations concerned with the Post Office and the nationalised industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied that consumers of nationalised industries' goods and services are adequately protected.

In addition to the full range of consumer legislation, users of nationalised industries' goods and services have the benefit of assistance and representation from those industries' consumer councils. I have asked the National Consumer Council to report on consumer representation in the nationalised industries by 1st March 1976 and I shall consider carefully any improvements it recommends.

Has not the Secretary of State a great opportunity here? Will she give these councils the power, for the first time, to investigate why, in case after case, the nationalised industries are piling fresh charges on to the consumer without, apparently, abolishing their deficits? Is it not becoming clear that we shall not get a decently run public sector until its managements are just as wary of the consumer as they now are of the trade unions?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful from the consumers' point of view. He will be glad that the deficits are showing signs of falling during the current financial year. At this stage it would be improper for me to prejudge a review the results of which will not be available until early next year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many consumers consider that the absence of market pressures is resulting in inefficient working within the nationalised industries? Did he notice the reports of a recent court case in which an employee of the Post Office accused of fraudulently claiming overtime based his defence on the grounds that that practice was widespread within the Post Office? Is the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection looking into abuses of this kind within the public sector?

It is hardly our job to pursue criminal activity within the employment sector, be it public or private. Obviously, we share the disquiet that exists. The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to build an indictment against the nationalised industries in general on an instance of what appears to be one rather reprehensible case. If he insists on doing that, he will find similar cases in the private sector. No conclusion can be drawn from it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy coming from Tory Members who argue strongly that there must be an economic price for the nationalised industries and, at the same time, accuse the Government of acting wrongly when prices rise as a result of the very arguments which they have advanced? I am not very much in favour of the arguments advanced by Tory Members.

My hon. Friend is correct to use the word "hypocrisy" to describe some of the views that we hear from Opposition Members, who continually bray for the elimination of subsidies and then hold up their hands in horror when price increases are announced to eliminate the subsidies.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has any plans to increase the retail price of milk.

As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agri- culture, Fisheries and Food on 15th October, the retail price of milk will be increased by 1½p per pint to 8½p per pint on 2nd November 1975.

As farmers are to receive only one-quarter of a penny per unit from this increase, what arrangements is the Minister making to protect the consumer against the inevitable shortages which will result as the dairy herd goes into further decline? Are we to import dried skimmed milk from the Continent to ration out to consumers?

I am happy to be able to reply that there is no risk of any shortage of liquid milk in the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do the country no service by suggesting anything to the contrary. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since the measures announced by my right hon. Friend there have been some encouraging changes in the numbers of calf slaughterings.

Will my hon. Friend consider asking my right hon. Friend to have talks with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the new policy of the Common Market, which is to feed liquid milk to cattle and pigs, which to many Socialists is totally abhorrent while three-quarters of the world are dying of starvation?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend which undoubtedly can be raised at the Council of Ministers.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no shortage of milk, will he tell the House why, on Friday of this week, a milk factory is to close in my constituency because of shortage of milk, with the result that 71 people will lose their jobs? Is he unaware that because of the shortage of milk no butter has been made in Britain for many months, and every bit of butter we require has been imported, at a cost to the exchanges? How can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that there is no shortage of milk?

If the hon. Gentleman had only listened he would have realised that I said that there was no shortage, nor any expected shortage, of liquid milk for consumption. That is what the question was about. It is true that there is a decline in milk production and that that is affecting butter manufacture. It is encouraging to notice that there is some increase in the production of cheese in this country.

What grounds does the Minister have for believing that there will be no reduction in the supply of milk? Is he aware that every week now farmers are losing confidence, and more and more of them are joining in the flight from milk production?

I am not altogether surprised to find my former Conservative opponent somewhat confused by the facts. If he had listened to what I said he would know that I made it abundantly clear that there is no shortage of liquid milk for consumption. I have said that there is a decline in production which is affecting butter manufacture.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the percentage increase in the cost of living over the last 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in the retail price index over the past 12 months.

The retail prices index for September was 26·6 per cent. higher than a year earlier. This represents a small decrease on the corresponding year-on-year figures for August and marks the first year-on-year decline for 12 months.

Why have the Government allowed the rate of increase in the cost of living to triple in the 12 months since October 1974, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the rate of increase in the cost of living was 8 per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman should recall that his Question is about year-on-year rates, and he is now quoting three-monthly rates. It does no good to the House to compare these two different rates, as he will discover in the course of exchanges on later Questions.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that hon. Members opposite seemed to be remarkably concerned about quarterly figures until recently? Can she explain to the House why there has been this apparent conversion from asking for quarterly rates to asking for yearly figures?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. The three-monthly trend reads as follows: in July, at an annual rate it was 32·6 per cent., and the Opposition were very interested; in August, it was 15·2 per cent. and the Opposition had no opportunity to ask Questions; in September, it was 10·4 per cent. and the Opposition have not asked any Questions.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that, no matter how much she tries to wriggle, fiddle and twist, the fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the last General Election, one year ago, deliberately told the country that the rate of inflation was 8·4 per cent.? As the majority of the people are not quite so clever as she is or as her right hon. Friend is at twisting and deceiving in this way—

Order. The hon. Member must not accuse another right hon. or hon. Member of deceiving.

I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker—misleading the country by a terminological inexactitude which sought to give people the impression that the Government had inflation under control, to what does she ascribe the fact that inflation has exploded so much? Is it too much or too little Socialism?

The hon. Gentleman does the profession of politics no good by continually switching from year-on-year rates to three-monthly rates. The House should decide which it wants and stick to them. Constant changes of comparison to suit Opposition advantage do not help in the battle against inflation.

In order that the facts should be put as simply as possible and in view of the conflicting forecasts about the rate of inflation which have emanated from a number of Ministers, will the right hon. Lady tell us whether we should accept the Chancellor's forecast that the rate of inflation will be between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. by the end of this year, or the Government's own target of 10 per cent. by the end of next year, or the Foreign Secretary's forecast of about 12 per cent. by the end of next year? Would the right hon. Lady like to add her own forecast in reply?

When the last administration left office they were basing their own forecasts for inflation on a probable very rapid decline in commodity levels. In the event, that was proved wrong. I therefore think it wiser to say that we are at present directly on target for the Government's own forecast of increase in the Index of Retail Prices by the end of next year. Clearly, it would be most unwise to say that that forecast is firm, in view of what may occur in the world outside. The hon. Lady will recall that only recently, as a result of OPEC bargaining, there was an increase in oil prices—the sort of increase which none of us can ever foresee months ahead and which we would be unwise to try to foresee.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will now introduce further measures to control prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what measures she proposes to take to prevent price rises for the consumer over the next six months.

The present strict price controls are being continued. They permit price increases only when they are justified by costs. A price freeze now would only put more jobs at risk, since firms' margins, which are now little more than half the permitted reference levels set in 1973, would not allow them to absorb the additional costs themselves.

In view of reports that by next spring the average family's weekly food bill will have increased by about £1·30 and that the £6 pay limit will have been more than used up by further price increases in such items as rents, rates and fuel, will my right hon. Friend investigate the possibility of introducing a selective price freeze on certain basic food items and also make mandatory the local price surveys which she has asked local authorities to introduce?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the purpose of the selective price restraint programme which we shall be negotiating with industry in the next few months will be to hold down the cost of essential goods across the range in order to marry with the restraint which is being shown in incomes. We recognise that people have a right to expect a return for the restraint which they are showing.

May I remind the right hon. Lady that in her answer she referred to the effects of price restraint on unemployment? Conversely, will she comment on the chances of an improved climate for employment and the creation of more jobs if she were to relax the Price Code?

The House will know that over the whole of the counter-inflation programme we are walking a delicate tightrope between the need to maintain employment and the need to reduce inflationary pressures. Taking those two factors and attempting to balance them as best we can, I do not believe that further relaxation of the Price Code in the present counter-inflationary year would be sensible. However, I recognise that the effect of price restraint has been very sharply to lower profit margins, and the House should be aware of that.

My right hon. Friend has talked about the possibility of jobs being placed at risk. Does she agree that jobs are already at risk following the Government's attitude to inflation policy? Does she think that confidence might be restored among the people if she really attacked the question of prices?

If there had not been a counter-inflation programme—I notice that my hon. Friend does not support it—we would today be facing grave problems in attempting to sell exports and maintaining the credibility of this country. That is why many of my colleagues and I strongly support the counter-inflation programme. I have made it clear that it is my full intention to ensure that the easing of cost pressures, as soon as it begins, is reflected in the level of prices.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report of the economic development committee of the food and drink industry on investment in that industry? It shows that in 1976 that committee expects investment to be down 20 per cent., in 1977 to be down 30 per cent. and in 1978 to be down 40 per cent. Before her hon. Friends talk about relaxing the Price Code, should not she drum those figures into the "know nothing" Left?

The food manufacturers have certainly seen a rapid drop in their profit margins. In the first quarter of 1975 they were approximately half what they were in the first quarter of 1974. In a counter-inflationary period, one must put a squeeze on profits as well as on incomes; I believe that that is right. We have recognised in the Price Code—we are the first Government to do so—that there is scope for investment relief, and that is why we have written it into the code.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied with the current Price Code; and if she will consider introducing legislation for a price freeze of essential commodities together with the publication of maximum prices to be charged, such price lists to cover a much wider range than solely subsidised foods.

The Price Code is far from perfect, but it does keep price increases down in line with increases in costs. To superimpose a price freeze on essential goods when costs are still rising would endanger the jobs of those who make them. However, I shall shortly begin negotiations with the appropriate representative bodies for a programme of selective price restraint on a range of goods of special importance in family expenditure. The programme will come into operation when it is clear that the pay limit is being effectively observed and cost pressure begins to ease. Imposing maximum prices on unsubsidised goods does little to keep prices down. I am, however, initiating regular price comparisons very widely on which will be based price lists showing where prices are lowest in each locality covered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the TUC would welcome a price freeze, particularly in view of its cooperation over the development of the social contract? Does she accept that the publication of a much wider range of prices, which I have outlined in the Question, would be widely welcomed and could be adequately policed by the local authority price and consumer units which my right hon. Friend mentioned in reply to an earlier Question? Would that not be implementing that section of Labour's 1973 programme on the machinery of price control?

On the first part of the question, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I, too, would like a price freeze, but I am faced with the fact that, for example, in the two months to September the price of material inputs into food manufacture alone—we are talking not about farm gate prices but about import prices—rose by 10½ per cent., and last month oil prices rose by 10 per cent. If these costs are simply stopped from being followed through they will lead to wide-scale redundancies. Therefore, much as I should like to see a price freeze, I am satisfied that it is not on, without driving firms into bankruptcy. I am doing my best to reflect any reduction in costs all the way through by the price restraint programme which I have described.

I declare an interest. When will the right hon. Lady recognise that the food manufacturers have borne the brunt of the restraints imposed by the previous Government and this one? Bearing that point in mind, and also that commodity prices are now rising again, does she realise that, far from any further restrictions, there will have to be a relaxation of the Price Code for food manufacturers in general? Far more good would be done by restraining rate increases, which are becoming a bigger problem for the lower paid, than food increases.

In a period when we are asking for wage restraint at the level of £6 a week, which for many people means rises of less than 10 per cent., it would be unfair to leave any section of the community outside such restraint, including food manufacturers. There has been some improvement in the position of food manufacturers. I do not quarrel with that, but they, also, must make their contribution to the counter-inflation programme, because it is as much in their interests as anybody else's that it should succeed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many workers at the Kraft factory at Kirby are now on short-time working because of the reduction in demand for margarine, following the butter subsidy? Is she aware that there is great resentment among them that butter, which is largely imported, is subsidised out of their taxes, whereas margarine is an indigenous product? Will she consider giving a similar, if not an equal, subsidy to margarine as is given to butter?

I think my hon. Friend should be aware that, to the best of my knowledge, the raw materials used in the manufacture of margarine are not grown in England. We do not frequently grow oil seeds, and we do not have many whales floating up the Channel. Therefore, that point is ill taken.

Is it not absurd that Associated British Foods should have had to ask the right hon. Lady's permission to reduce the price of a standard loaf by ½p? Is it not equally absurd that some manufacturers should be prevented from selling loaves in traditional waxed paper at lower prices than loaves in plastic bags? Does this not show that in some respects the Price Code is preventing manufacturers from exercising price competition to the benefit of the consumer?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Allied Bakeries got permission immediately, when it asked for the right to decrease the price of bread by ½p. The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that we have a direct responsibility to this House and to the general public to protect the use of subsidies and to ensure that they benefit the consumer rather than any particular firm. For that reason, firms must ask permission to change their prices—properly so—and we grant that permission if the position is clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement about the reaction of local authorities to her proposals for local price monitoring.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many local authorities have availed themselves of the grants available to them from her Department for the provision of price information.

I am very pleased at the encouraging response. A total of 130 firm and provisional applications in respect of about 460 shopping centres have been received; 108 are from local authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain local chambers of commerce have voiced their total opposition to the concept of price comparisons? Will she confirm that the honest retailer has absolutely nothing to fear from this process if it is competently and fairly undertaken? Therefore, will she press on with her campaign to persuade more local authorities to undertake this work?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. In the preliminary surveys we have discovered that savings of as much as 20p in the pound can be made by shopping where the best value for money is available. We should tell those in the retail trade that we take their claims about competition seriously and intend to make competition really effective. The retailer who is efficient and is serving his customers properly not only has nothing to fear but everything to gain from the facts being widely known.

Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that her policy on price information is working? Not all local authorities have jumped at the grants which are available. Is she sure that she is not wasting the taxpayers' money in what amounts to a purely Socialist public relations exercise?

Two-thirds of local authorities have submitted applications, and much as I should like to hope that my party controlled two-thirds of local authorities, it does not. Among those authorities is the hon. Gentleman's own county and among the areas covered is his own constituency. Therefore, he will be able to see on the ground how effective the policy is.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will amend the legislation governing mock auctions so as to provide greater protection to the public against exploitation.

I have at present no plans to do so, but if the hon. Member has any evidence of practices in this field not covered by present legislation I shall be glad if he will let me know.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities, particularly those in North Wales, are anxious to prevent but have been unable to prevent the spread of this most undesirable practice, which is nothing short of organised swindling? A great deal more information is required about what is available to local authorities to deal with the situation. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consult local authorities in the area about what steps can be taken?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there was a court decision in February this year which, it was felt, widened the scope of the existing legislation. We are awaiting further test cases and hope that local authorities will institute such cases. Under Part II of the Fair Trading Act the Director General of Fair Trading has power to make proposals for further legislation, should that be appropriate. It is unusual for me to receive invitations to visit hon. Members' constituencies—they are more than happy if I stay away—but if it would be of help to members of the hon. Gentleman's local authority I should be glad to arrange a visit to discuss the matter with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement regarding progress towards the metrication of consumer goods.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the programme for introducing metrication so far as it affects her Department.

Successive Governments have believed metrication to be in the national interest and that the process should be completed as soon as possible. My Department will continue to support the change-over. It has always been recognised that the metrication of consumer goods would follow that of industry, but, on the whole, progress in this sector will need to be quicker if we are to fulfil our EEC obligation to phase out the general use of imperial units by the end of 1979.

What steps is the Minister taking to allay the well-founded suspicion that this may be an opportunity for the same price rises that occurred with decimalisation?

What the hon. Lady says is not well founded. I should be intrigued to see the evidence on which she bases that allegation. That applies to any hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is common sense."] The Opposition are hardly in a position to talk about common sense—although we may be able to arrange for a definition of common sense to be provided.

I support metrication, but we all remember what happened with decimalisation. What do the Department estimate will be the effect of this changeover on the cost of living?

There is no reason why there should be a direct effect. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen were not articulate against metrication when the Conservative Party was in office.

I was.

There is no reason why there should be extra cost. As a result of discussions between the Metrication Board, the Government and industry, attempts are being made to ensure that re-equipping takes place at the time of change-over, thereby minimising additional costs. There will be the advantages of reduced stock being carried and single production lines instead of imperial and metric production lines.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in accusing me of not having been against metrication. I have been against it all along. I should be interested to know the total cost of metrication to the country.

No such figure is calculable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Opposition express surprise. Nevertheless, that is so, as so much of the process is being phased in with the natural progress of industrial re-equipment. However, it is impossible to give a meaningful and supportable figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she has received the Price Commission's latest quarterly report for the period 1st June to 31st August 1975, and if she will make a statement.

The report was laid before the House on 23rd October.

Is the Minister aware that for the second quarter in succession the report of the Price Commission drew special attention to the problem of nationalised industries' costs? Is the Minister aware that the most important factor is costs within industry and not the prices which industry charges? Will the Minister comment on the expression of the Price Commission to the effect that inflation seems to be abating in the private sector but is getting worse in the public sector?

There are three reasons why the nationalised industries have produced proportionately higher costs than the private sector. First, the increase in oil prices has had a greater effect on the nationalised sector, and especially on the energy industries, than on the private sector taken as a whole. Secondly, nationalised industries are more labour-intensive and have therefore reflected the increase in labour costs. Thirdly, an attempt was made in the past year to reduce the level of public borrowing required to meet the deficits of the nationalised industries, and there are now marked signs of the deficits falling, which have had to be shown in terms of the effect on costs and, eventually, on final prices. That policy was supported by both sides of the House in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she expects to implement the proposals of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

The committee, under the chairmanship of the Director General, which is reviewing the Act is still seeking comments on the proposals set out in its consultative document. When I receive the committee's final report I shall consider the content and timing of any amending legislation.

Does the Minister understand the need to make haste in these matters? Otherwise, the Government's proposals may come into the Director General's offending category of vague and misleading claims. Are the proposals likely to include a statutory definition of words such as "waterproof", "unshrinkable", and "dye-fast"? Will the Minister give an assurance that there is no question of reintroducing retail price maintenance?

I should not have thought that there was the slightest question of reintroducing retail price maintenance. There is a separate consultative document on the terms to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in addition to the consultative document's reference to prices.

Successive Governments have used phrases such as "fair trading" and "consumer protection", but the recent events at Southampton, relating to the "Eagle" affair, show that the poor old consumer has no protection when he or she is used as a bargaining counter between two sides of an industrial dispute. Does the Minister accept that this is a matter of the consumer's failing to obtain protection? Will the Department look into the implications of what happened?

The hon. Gentleman's request goes beyond the subject of this Question, which concerns consultation on the Trade Descriptions Act. If he will put down a specific Question we may consider the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she intends to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission on exemption clauses in services.

I intend to introduce legislation to deal with exemption clauses as soon as possible after we have completed consultations on the proposals with the consumer, legal and business interests concerned.

As this process is likely to take a considerable time—I appreciate the difficulties—and in view of the need for the introduction of this overdue legislation to protect consumers from exclusion clauses in the provision of services, will the Minister undertake to give Government support, in the next Session, to a Private Member's Bill which may provide a solution?

I share the hon. Lady's sense of urgency. I am not criticising, but the Conservative Government took virtually three years to carry out their consultations on the complex issue of exclusion clauses in the provision of goods. It is our hope to complete the consultations in the coming legislative year, if that is at all practicable, and to try to introduce the legislation at the earliest possible date.

Will the Minister confirm the Government's intention to introduce, in that legislation, elements which will strictly prohibit garages from protecting themselves against damage to vehicles parked in their car parks or workshops during repairs?

We want to do our best to be fair to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman will have read the complex reports on this matter. Consultations will take place, which we hope to complete in not too long a period. I refer to a matter of months. We hope that that will not stretch to years, as on the previous occasion. If the hon. Gentleman, having seen the consultative document, wishes to discuss any aspects of it with my colleagues or myself, I am sure that we shall be delighted to arrange that.

Is the Minister aware that members of the Liberal Party are not in the slightest degree interested in any of the questions and answers today?

The Liberal Party seems to have adopted a self-excluding clause.

Will the Minister use his best endeavours to bring the matter of exclusion clauses before the House as soon as possible, as many thousands of people will be entering into contracts for holidays? In a number of tragic cases, accidents have occurred and exclusion clauses have robbed those people of the opportunity to make claims.

I completely agree that exclusion clauses have on many occasions acted with gross unfairness towards the consumer. I think it is time that in large areas they were completely eliminated and in others modified. This is a fairly intricate area, involving questions of insurance and so on. We want to get it right and it is our intention to do so quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the consequences for the Price Code of the report of the Sandilands Committee on inflation accounting.

The Sandilands Committee has recommended that, if its proposals for the adoption of current cost accounting are accepted, CCA should become the accounting basis of the Government's price control policy. The Government are studying the committee's findings, and a statement will be made early in the new Session giving the Government's views on the main recommendations of the report.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the apparent interpretation of the Sandilands Report is that profit levels are insufficient to support the levels of investment required, and that that suggests that there should be an urgent review of the investment relief contained in the Price Code?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the committee made no judgments on the question whether the Price Code would bite harder or less hard if CCA were introduced. It is fair to say that the Committee proposed a starting date of 1977. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in any case the present Price Code does not have legislative authority to continue beyond that date. I suggest that the time to discuss the report is over the next few months.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion by the Sandilands Committee that the system of capital allowances be extended to include commercial buildings, without waiting for a general review of the whole basis of company taxation?

I take my hon. Friend's proposal on board. We are anxious to do anything that will encourage employment. It was much for that reason that we included distribution warehouses and commercial vehicles in our last review of the Price Code. We shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

In view of the right hon. Lady's recent statement in the House that she did not foresee any changes to the code prior to July 1976, will she review the position if the Government decide to make changes by implementing the Sandilands Report? It would appear to be highly desirable that the Price Code changes should precede the adoption of the recommendations of that report.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that constant tinkering with the Price Code in a period of counter-inflation policy, which itself has a final date on it, is perhaps not the wisest way to go about concentrating the country's attention. However, it is fair to say that we are already committed to considering the whole matter by the summer of next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the current annual rate of expenditure on food subsidies; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the cost of food subsidies in each of the two years ending 5th April 1977.

The estimated cost of food subsidies in the current financial year is about £554 million. The cost in 1976–77 is expected to be about £400 million, in 1975 price terms.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that subsidies of this magnitude represent an essay in economic unreality? May we hope that the expected downturn as between the second year and the current year will indicate that these subsidies will be speedily phased out, as a contribution to the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, but the food subsidy programme developed last year brought quick and effective relief to the low-income families most affected by sharply rising prices.

Will the Minister rephrase the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in terms of actual pounds instead of unreal pounds? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that more than half of the total food subsidies for the current year and for the following year will be received by families in receipt of an income of more than £50 a week?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that is a matter still to be calculated when the final figures are agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the second part, I remind him that the benefit of subsidies to those with incomes of less than £20 a week is four times greater than to those earning £80 a week.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that there is no question of phasing out this valuable help to low income families? Will he again emphasise the point, which is deliberately neglected by the Opposition, that there is a considerable redistribution from the wealthier section of the community to the benefit of the vast majority of poorer people?

The future of subsidies is spelt out in the January White Paper on public expenditure as amended by the July White Paper on inflation. It is made clear that it is the Government's view that this is a most helpful means of assistance to the less well-off members of our community, for the reasons which my hon. Friend gave. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Child Poverty Action Group has revised its view and now accepts the Government's reasons for having this policy.

The introduction of food subsidies has formed part of the electoral programme of the Labour Party on at least one occasion. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the phasing out of these subsidies is either not part of the programme or was included in at least one of the electoral programmes on the last occasion?

It has always been made clear by my right hon. Friend that this programme was intended to bridge the difficult gap before it was possible to bring in other forms of benefit. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that substantial increases in social security benefits are in train.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what study she has made of the consultative document on firework accidents; if, in the light of this study, she will take steps to reduce firework accidents; and if she will make a statement.

About 60 organisations, representing a wide range of interests, have submitted their views. I am now holding urgent discussions with the industry and distributors' associations.

Although my hon. Friend may not be prepared to go as far as some of us would wish in this direction, will he give us an assurance that there will be early action concerning, for example, the raising of the age at which fireworks may be bought, or the introduction of stiffer penalties for those shopkeepers and others who infringe the provisions? Will he also consider those fireworks which, according to the consultative document, appear to lead to most accidents, with a view to banning them?

My hon. Friend is right in pinpointing the fact that we now seem to have two fairly clear options available to us. The first is to go for a complete ban of retail sales and have only organised displays. The second is to go for a package of measures which may further reduce the rate of accidents. It is in order to establish precisely what is available in the second package that I am meeting the retailers tomorrow, before I make a final decision. I have already had initial discussions with the manufacturers. Although there has been a massive fall in the number of accidents, from over 2,400 in 1968 to 896 last year, we hope that there will be a further fall this year and that by the action we shall take, as a result of these consultations, we shall still further reduce the number in the following year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if fireworks were a new device, no Government would consider allowing them for general sale to the public? Will he give a short snappy answer, like "Yes" or "No"?

In reply to the hon. Lady's second question—"No". I understand that she wants a similar short, snappy reply to her first question, but the matter has to be considered on its merits. The inspectorate has responsibility and ample power to stop the retailing of these products in cases where it considers that they present a particular danger to the public. There are, at present, certain imported fireworks which are virtually in bond, because the inspectorate will not allow them to be distributed.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will seek powers to make the Price Commission responsible for the approval or otherwise of manufacturers' recommended retail prices and their display on the product.

Manufacturers' recommended prices are not enforceable on retailers. The Director General of Fair Trading is considering the problem of claimed reductions from a recommended price.

Does my hon. Friend not think it totally illogical for his Department to be concerned with regulating wholesale prices but to have no regulatory powers over retail prices? Is he aware that the overwhelming opinion throughout the country is that products for retail sale should be stamped with a maximum recommended price? If that were done the shoppers would have some idea what is meant when manufacturers print labels with the announcement of a reduction of so much off the maximum recommended price. Will he now come to some conclusion about making it meaningful for manufacturers to print notices announcing so much off the price?

A number of points are involved. First, our price controls are directed to the prices actually charged and to the firms which charge them. Wholesale and retail margins fall within our controls.

No, it would not.

I think the consequence would be to the disadvantage of the consumer. It would mean that the maximum price stamped on the item would be that which did not drive the small corner shop out of business.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations she has received from the oil companies concerning the price of petrol; and if she will make a statement.

None, but I have had representations, which I am considering, from retailers' associations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the stupid price and gimmick war goes on, and that it has now reached ridiculous proportions? Surely now is the time for her to tell the oil companies to regulate the price of petrol according to grade, and to stop these stupid gimmicks, which only increase the price of the product?

First, I assure my hon. Friend that the major oil companies are ceasing their policy of selective discounts from the end of this month.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the various gimmicks which have been put out—for example, 7p off, 5p off and 4p off—have really misled the public? Sould not garages show the actual price which the purchaser is being charged, and not take a certain amount off an unknown figure?

As was indicated in reply to an earlier Question, these matters are being urgently considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. At present there is no legislation, and we do not have the power to say to what price the reduction refers. However, we are making urgent inquiries into the matter. I should point out that the consumption of petrol in August was 7 per cent. below the figure for August 1974. This situation is leading to garages cutting each other's throats in an effort to stay in business.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take steps to ensure that prices are displayed in public houses.

I am happy to tell hon. Members that I made an order under Section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 today which comes into operation on 1st December. The order, which commands wide support in the trade and from consumers, is expected to be laid and published next Monday.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. As there are bitter feelings amongst many customers at the variation in price levels, not only between public house and public house, but between different customers during the evening, will he give maximum publicity to the order?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in stating the public alarm at this matter. I think that he will be aware that in a survey carried out for a Midlands authority it was found that in 66 per cent. of the public houses visited there was overcharging and that in some instances the overcharging was by as much as 50 per cent. above the brewers' recommended price. At the risk of boring the House with further statistics, I would add that we believe that this order will cover approximately 95 per cent. of all drinks sold in public houses.