asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what proposals she has for setting up an appeals procedure to deal with matters arising from decisions taken by the Price Commission; and if she will make a statement.

There is no scope for this under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.

Does not the Minister agree, on the basis of experience of the working of the 1963 Act, that when a decision of the Price Commission threatens a whole operation with consequential redundancies there should be a facility for appeal for a modification of that decision before it is finalised?

There are provisions which allow the Price Commission to consider the relaxation of the provisions of the Price Code in certain exceptional circumstances. The hon. Gentleman and I have had an exchange of correspondence about this matter. I understand that he has a firm in mind which is seeking to make a case under paragraph 76 of the code for exceptional treatment. That case is being considered with all possible speed.

May I remind the Minister that we have raised the question of an appeals procedure before—I think in the debate on the Remuneration Charges and Grants Act? Should there be more cases of difficulty, particularly involving companies in Category 3, which do not normally have the major procedures of inspection applied to them, will the Minister examine them equally carefully?

That would need to be considered in the context of any new legislation which the Government had in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on the progress of her negotiations for price restraint.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement about the progress of her consultations with the CBI and all other interested parties on the subject of voluntary price restraint.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on the progress of her consultations regarding the introduction of a Selective Price Restraint Scheme.

Discussions are proceeding with the CBI, the Retail Consortium and individual trade associations. I believe that the negotiations will succeed, because industry and commerce recognise how vital success is, in the battle against inflation, and the need to concentrate the initial benefits of declining costs on important items in the family budget.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What progress is being made on the inclusion of the nationalised industries in the scheme? In particular, what is the relevance of her Written Answer to me in which she said that she will refer the question of fuel tariffs and charges to the National Consumer Council? Has my right hon. Friend any information about the price restraint scheme and the proposed scheme distorting competition and the retail price index? Allegations of that sort are being made. Lastly, what view has the National Consumer Council taken of my right hon. Friend's proposals?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing specifically with nationalised industries. My hon. Friend may know that last week I made a reference to the National Consumer Council asking it to study the impact of fuel costs on the budgets of low-income groups and families in particular. With regard to my hon. Friend's third question, I assure him that there is no question of distortion of the retail price index. The items in the scheme will be drawn from most fields of con- sumer spending. The selection of the items depends on the outcome of negotiations with industry. Therefore, within the scheme there will be items both within the RPI and outside it, and the accuracy of the RPI as a yardstick of living costs will be in no way affected.

Industry obviously recognises the importance of problems of inflation. Why is it that at the same time as seeking restraint on prices the right hon. Lady also supports the extension of the dock labour scheme, which will increase distributors' costs and may increase unemployment?

That is not a question for me.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the major problem of people in Britain today remains making ends meet, and that, whatever the agreement made by the interested parties, there is considerable misunderstanding by consumers generally of what price restraint policies are currently in force and may well be in force in the future? What efforts will my right hon. Friend make to make more widely understood among the general public the price controls that exist, and what will be done to enforce them—something which we all fear is not done today?

My hon. Friend may care to look at the way in which costs have moved over the past two years. If he does that carefully, by looking at the reports of the Price Commission, I think he will find that he cannot sustain his last remark. I accept that there are problems about publicising the forms of price control that exist. One of the matters that we are taking into account most carefully in our proposals for the price restraint programme is the necessary publicity. The price comparison exercise is directed at the individual consumer in the High Street. That is where the information is being made available.

Will the right hon. Lady now answer the questions she failed to answer in the debate the other night, as to how many items, taken from the list her Department has circulated, she will take as an absolute minimum in any voluntary agreement she may enter into? Will she confirm that for every price held down under cross-subsidisation another will have to rise by more than it would otherwise have risen?

I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Lady's question, and I do not think that it would be right to do so, because we are consulting industry, and it would be inappropriate to answer on the basis of a series of dogmatic positions. With regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, it is not the case that every item within the price restraint will depend on cross-subsidisation. Certainly some will, but it is not the case that all will.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how she proposes to bring the cross-subsidisation of products by manufacturers and retailers, proposed as part of the Selective Price Restraint Scheme, within the terms of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

The Selective Price Restraint Scheme is designed to keep down the prices of a range of items of importance in family expenditure, and my right hon. Friend will be ready to use her powers under Section 2 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1968 to approve agreements, made at her request in pursuit of the scheme, which relate exclusively to prices to be charged and whose object is to restrict increases in those prices.

As the Government seem to be aware of the danger of the scheme possibly distorting the retail price index, will they take steps to see that proper publicity is given to any distortions which may occur, so that the credibility of the retail price index does not take the battering that it took at the last election?

No one has sought to discredit the retail price index as an authoritative and accurate account of the movement of prices, and I do not imagine that that is the hon. Gentleman's purpose in putting that supplementary question. My right hon. Friend will issue a consultative document on an amendment to the Price Code, designed to enable firms to increase the prices of their products where that is necessary to enable them to hold down the prices of items included in the Selective Price Restraint Scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it never ceases to amaze my hon. Friends and me that Opposition Members should seek to find so many loopholes in any proposal to protect the poor from the effect of inflation? Will he take back to his colleagues the message that some hon. Members are most concerned to get this scheme into action, are disappointed that it is taking so long, and look forward to a speedy outcome of the negotiations?

From the moment of its introduction, Opposition Members sought to snipe at the Government's counter-inflationary policy. I am glad to say that it remains intact and that their attacks have been very wide of the target.

If the retail price index is to be fiddled in this manner, what compensation will the Government give to subscribers to their index-linked savings scheme—or is the answer that it does not make much difference to the long-term rate of inflation?

The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark, suggesting that my right hon. Friend is engaged in some dishonest practice. He must know that that is untrue. I ask him to withdraw the remark, because it is inappropriate and unfitting to a Front Bench spokesman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to give the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) an opportunity to withdraw a remark which I hope and believe he wishes now that he had not made. During Question Time, he alleged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was "rigging" the retail price index. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to encourage him to do so.

In fact, the actual word used by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) was "fiddling". Although, in the context in which he used the word, I did not construe it that he intended to imply dishonesty, I must say that I deprecate words of that kind.

I intended in no way to imply that the right hon. Lady had behaved dishonestly or dishonourably. I was referring merely to her attempt, which I thought futile and, in the long run, self-defeating, to hold down prices artificially.

Further to that point of order—

No. I think that we have disposed of it now.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict price increases in the nationalised industries to 5 per cent. from February to July 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how she proposes to restrict price rises in the nationalised industries to 5 per cent. during the six months from 1st February.

The Government are discussing with the nationalised industries the contribution they may be able to make to the selective price restraint scheme described in paragraph 33 of the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" (Cmnd. 6151).

Has the Minister of State seen the TUC's evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries suggesting that there would be little advantage to the low-income groups in making a distinction in tariffs between small and large users of fuel? Secondly, does he agree that if price increases in the nationalised industries are limited to 5 per cent. in regard to domestic users, there will be no point or benefit in such a move if it simply means that the costs to industry rise by more than that figure and that that is reflected in the general price of manufactured goods to the domestic user?

I have seen the reports, but not the detailed evidence of the TUC's statement. I fully understand the difficulties. It is one of the factors that we have had to take into account where it involves low-income families living in single-fuel flats who can be high consumers of a specific fuel source. We are taking that matter into account in considering our policies.

Whereas in general terms the country might be virtuous in urging this kind of restraint, in the case of the railways, where a value judgment may have to be made, does my hon. Friend realise that some of us would prefer to see railway fares rise even further, and well above the 5 per cent., if it would enable the nation to retain railway lines that are vital to the economy, particularly in the north of Scotland and other parts of Britain, and certainly in areas which, because of the growth of new towns, now face different circumstances from those that obtained when the railway lines were closed?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that the wider social effects of decisions on the railways have to be taken into account. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am conscious of the circumstances that apply in Scotland and some of the other remote areas. That is another factor that would be taken into account in whatever decisions were taken, The main decision will rest with the Ministry of Transport.

Does the original reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) mean that the Government are no longer sticking to their intention of keeping price rises in the nationalised industries down to 5 per cent. within the six-months' period, or does it mean that the Government now see the possibility of continuing subsidies in the nationalised industries throughout next year? If the answer is to the latter effect, may I remind the Minister that in given evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries the other day the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government intended totally to phase out subsidies within the nationalised industries during 1976?

The objective of viability remains. Nobody has altered it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and I have repeatedly made clear that this would be a selective approach. There was never any suggestion by the Government that the whole range should be kept to a 5 per cent. ceiling. It was always made clear that there would be a selective attack on prices, where practicable.

Will my hon. Friend remember that prices and subsidies are not the same thing? Many of us take the view that the existing price structure in the nationalised industries, particularly the fuel industries, is unfair to the small consumer. When tariffs were reversed in Japan there was no question of economic viability being threatened; indeed, more revenue was produced than was required.

We shall have those considerations in mind in the decisions we take.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she intends to pay her next official visit to the Council of Ministers.

I have no firm plans to do so at present.

I am disappointed with that reply. Does the Secretary of State accept that the British people expect her to impress on the Agriculture Ministers in the Community the absolute necessity of bringing about a fundamental change in the CAP to ensure that the consumer gets as fair a deal as the farmer? When my right hon. Friend last attended a meeting of Agriculture Ministers, were any other Ministers with consumer responsibilities present? If not, will she impress on other countries in the Community the importance of the attendance of consumer Ministers at EEC meetings?

On the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware that I was present at a stocktaking meeting on CAP. It would not be appropriate for me, as a non-Agriculture Minister, to be present at price fixing meetings. Those occasions would be restricted to Agriculture Ministers.

What attitude did the Secretary of State take on behalf of the consumer when discussing the stocktaking document in regard to the Commission's proposal for a two-tier price system for fresh milk supplies during the winter? Does she not agree that such a proposal would be very damaging to the consumers in this country?

The matter did not arise in detail on the stocktaking document. Matters discussed included surpluses in certain commodities, including dairy products; disposal of those surpluses; the basis on which prices should be fixed, for example, on a modern and efficient farm; and the question how far consumer consequences of pricing decisions should be set out in documents on the Commission's initiative in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will bring forward proposals requiring suppliers of goods and services to quote prices which include the relevant rate of value added tax.

This practice is being examined by the Director General of Fair Trading, who can put proposals for legislation to control it to my right hon. Friend through the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. I would like to have his recommendations and the Committee's report before considering whether any other action should be taken.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that it is difficult for the consumer to exercise an independent choice when some firms quote prices including VAT and others exclude that tax? Does he further agree that in some cases the practice of quoting VAT-exclusive prices is a deliberate attempt to deceive the consumer? Since we are lagging behind our EEC partners in allowing this practice, will the Minister cake the earliest opportunity to ban it?

I very much agree that it is an undesirable practice and that there is an urgent need for a proposal to be put forward for thorough consideration. It is right that action contrary to good trade practice should be considered by the Office of Fair Trading. We shall seek to operate as speedily as we can the arrangements under Part II of the Act.

Does the Minister agree that equally confusing is the fact that in respect of service and maintenance agreements in central heating systems the rate of VAT is 8 per cent., whereas in the case of service and maintenance agreements in respect of washing machines it is 25 per cent.? Does he not agree that that anomaly is in need of rectification?

The hon. Gentleman refers to an issue of substance that would be more appropriately directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretay of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will now make a further statement on petrol retailers' margins.

The Price Commission's final Report on Motor Fuel Retailers' Margins was published in August. It concluded that gross and net margins had fallen and were unlikely to recover until the market adjusted to a smaller retail network.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with that situation? Is she not aware that before the last price increase many chains were offering up to 15p discount on retail prices, and that even now, after the recent price increase, we still have discounts of up to lop or 15p being offered? If that kind of discount can be offered, why was a price increase granted?

The price increase was granted on the basis of United Kingdom costs, not on the basis of world-wide costs. However, I share my hon. Friend's disquiet. Consequently, we shortly expect to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission with regard to the relationship between the oil companies and the retail outlet. My hon. Friend may also like to know that we have mounted a separate inquiry involving the representatives of my Department and those of the Department of Energy into the way in which retail prices are established by the oil companies.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to proceed with a reference to the Monopolies Commission without further delay?

I am not sure who is the Minister—the hon. Lady or myself. However, I can assure her that I have done so, lest there be a confusion of identity between us.

In referring this matter to the Monopolies Commission, will the right hon. Lady ask the Commission to consider the recently expanding practice of the oil companies in charging more for smaller quantities of fuel and thus virtually ending retail controls for some rural outlets, where the tanks are not large enough to take the amounts of oil which the companies dictate? This results in an increase in price to people in rural communities.

I am anxious that there shall not be discrimination of this kind in rural areas. A number of references for special inquiries have been made to the Price Commission on this aspect of small quantities in remote areas. It is certainly a matter which I shall ask the Director General to take into account in connection with the reference.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that although in many cities 15p discounts may have been available, in rural areas in Wales they are not available, and it is not possible to find them by shopping around? Is she further aware that in such areas motor car transport is a necessity and not a luxury? Will she consider by what mechanics safeguards can be provided in these areas?

Yes. I would only add that the pattern of discounts has been very disparate in different parts of the United Kingdom. What my hon. Friend has said about rural areas is also true of a number of cities.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the total cost of food subsidies since the end of October 1974; which foods are covered by them; and what is the cost per food of these subsidies.

The total cost of food subsidies in the 12 months November 1974-October 1975 was about £625 million. With permission, I shall circulate the individual costs of subsidised foods in the Official Report.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that £625 million could have been more effectively spent in giving help to those who are most in need? What is the Government's precise timetable for phasing out these wasteful subsidies?

I am surprised that in the first Question tabled to my Department on this subject from the Liberal Benches for 10 months the hon. Member has not come up with something more original. I was equally surprised at the timing, just before Christmas, of a question pressing us to increase food prices. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's constituents will note that Scrooge is alive and well, and is a member of the Liberal Party.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the Department has taken into account what may happen as a result of the shortfall in the Russian wheat harvest—despite the increase in the American wheat harvest—namely, that there may be a greater demand for wheat and that, therefore, the price will go up, which will be detrimental to consumers in this country as well as to those in other parts of the world? This will mean that subsidies will have to be increased.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this difficulty. I gather that his country is fortunate, in that much of our supply has already been purchased.

Will the Minister of State please answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)? What is the Government's programme for phasing out food subsidies? Is it behind schedule, in advance of, or on schedule?

There is a Question on this subject later on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she intends to make any changes to the Price Code.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement about possible amendments to the Price Code.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will take steps further to extend and increase investment relief under the Price Code.

It is not my intention to make fundamental changes in the Price Code controls before the end of the current phase of the counter-inflation policy, next July. Certain technical amendments will be necessary to ensure that investment relief is available between April and July 1976 and to back up the price restraint scheme.

With the current record levels of unemployment, does the right hon. Lady realise that to those who understood that profits are central to investment and that investment is central to jobs, that reply is gravely disappointing? Is she going back on the undertaking announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Chequers, that he would consider relaxing the Price Code to facilitate investment? When will the Cabinet have the collective courage to abandon this policy, which is slowly bankrupting business?

The position has been consistently explained by the Government over many weeks. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in the House on 16th October, to the November debate, and to this Question. There has been no change whatsoever in this policy. It has been unhelpful that some people have suggested there may have been a change.

Does the Minister agree that ordinary working people are crying out for stricter price control, as they can barely maintain their living standards? Is she aware that big business is crying out for a relaxation of price controls in order that it may boost its profits, which are not always utilised for investment purposes? In this context, will the right hon. Lady state which side she is on? Will she give an assurance that she will not buckle to CBI pressure to relax the Price Code, especially at a time when workers' wages are strictly controlled?

I have made it clear that there can be no possibility of a relaxation in price controls, especially during the period of our counter-inflation policy. I have indicated before now that when we are in a position to move on—as I hope we shall be—to an improvement in growth and employment, we shall have to see how the Price Code can be altered to allow such investment to take place. I remind hon. Members that it was the present Government who allowed the recent investment relief.

Has the right hon. Lady noticed a report, which came out today, on the paper and board industry, which shows a frightening situation in terms of investment and employment prospects? When she talks about technical easements which are coming at some time in the new year, will she say whether those technical easements will help the paper and board industry?

I should require rather longer notice of that question. I have not yet seen the report. The industry, which is a heavy investor, should benefit from the extension of investment relief.

Has the right hon. Lady abandoned the idea of increasing the three-months pre-notification period?

No, I have not done so. I have made it clear that if we cannot negotiate a satisfactory price restraint scheme we shall have to consider the question of the three months' gap. I hope that that will not be necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the 12 month increase in the retail price index at the latest available date.

The year-onyear figure for the all-items index, which in October was 25·9 per cent., has fallen for the second successive month—the first time that this has happened since May 1972. This deceleration in inflation is expected to become more pronounced as the full effects of the £6 limit work through into the retail price index.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that despite the fact that inflation may not be running at quite the same level as it was three months ago, it is still running at a horrendous level? Does the right hon. Lady agree that so long as public expenditure continues to run at a deficit of something over £10,000 million a year, the retail price index is bound to continue to increase? Will she say what replies to the Chancellor she has made on this matter?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's presumption. First, we have seen a fall for two months running—nothing like as fast as one would wish, but the six-months' figure is 10·4 per cent., which at an annual rate is 21·9 per cent. The three-months' figure shows an annual rate of 12·4 per cent. Although I have never used a particular figure in this House, which is why I have now given the annual rate, the six-months' rate and the three-months' rate, what is indisputable is that there is a steady deceleration in the rate of inflation, and the main reason for that is the restraint which has been shown by those who are in a position to bargain for higher wages. This is unquestionably having a favourable effect on the RPI. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should shake his head at what is, up to now, a policy on target.

As the trade unions have accepted the £6 limit, what action will the Government take in relation to other reasons for inflation, because plainly the question of wages is not the whole content of inflation?

I do not think that I have ever suggested that it was. It is simply one factor, and as this factor improves there is an effect on the RPI. There are other factors. For instance, the rate of increase in respect of certain commodities has slowed down compared with the position a year ago. This is helpful. Also, there have been signs of a decelerating rate of increase in rates and matters of that kind.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the imposition of import controls would, of necessity, raise prices? What is her Department's position about import controls, and what representations has she made to her right hon. Friends who are concerned with other aspects of this matter?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reveal what has taken place at Government discussions, but he knows, as I know, that import controls have a slight effect on prices, though it depends on the length, breadth and items content of any such controls.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the retail price index contains quite a number of items which old-age pensioners and people on low fixed incomes either cannot buy or do not want to buy? To that extent, the figures of the retail price index are not as applicable to this section of the population as may be thought.

My hon. Friend is quite right. He will appreciate, however, that it would be a grave mistake to change the retail price index, which has been accepted by both sides of industry. The pensioner index shows very much the same sort of deceleration as the all-items index.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she can assess the effect which the voluntary price agreement in the summer had on the retail price index.

The voluntary price limitation agreement with manufacturers and the retail trade, which ran initially from June 1974 to March 1975, was designed to hold down the prices of an agreed "shopping basket" of household essentials, mainly foods. It was introduced after the gross margin ceilings permitted under the Price Code for distributors had been cut by 10 per cent. Over this period, the index of items in the agreement increased by about 13 per cent. compared with 19 per cent. for the retail food index. Although the agreement was then extended until June, both parties recognised that the scope provided by the 10 per cent. cut had by then been eroded by the increase of retailing expenses.

Is it right that for the money with which it would have been possible to fill the Secretary of State's famous shopping basket at the time, it would now be possible to fill only two-thirds of the basket?

Whether or not that is so, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is keenly supporting any action that will help to restrain inflation. I hope that we shall have his support if we have to bring in any further legislation.

Does the Minister recall that in a previous answer the Secretary of State said that wage restraint was the main cause of the deceleration in the price index? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the other side of the coin—that the acceleration in prices was due to wage increases?

My right hon. Friend did not say that. In answer to one of my colleagues she said that it was a factor and, as the level of wage settlements fell, this was being reflected in the rate of inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that low-income families will be adequately protected against price increases during the next year.

Despite the severe economic constraints that we face, we have given and continue to give priority to the interests of these families in shaping our social and pricing policies.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is precious cold comfort for the coming year? Will he reconsider the wisdom of spreading subsidies over the whole population, and concentrate subsidies instead on those in greatest need, where they can do the most good?

In case the hon. Lady has not noticed, may I point out that in addition to subsidies there is the price restraint programme. Hon. Members opposite seem to oppose both. We have twice increased pensions this year, and low-income earners will benefit most from the £6 agreement.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in a previous answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to those who are able to bargain? The answer to this Question will, I hope, be borne in mind, particularly for those who are not able to bargain for themselves. Does my hon. Friend realise that an increase of 6p in the price of paraffin oil is a devastating blow to old people, many of whom depend on paraffin for their home heating?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and it is for that reason that we are giving the priority which we regard as appropriate through subsidies and price restraint. I wish that the Opposition parties would show more support for our policies.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the complacency of the Secretary of State about the rate of inflation and its effect on poorer families is highly alarming, and that even if the Government's target is reached by the end of next year, or exceeded by perhaps 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., inflation is likely to be twice that of our main competitors for the second year running? The effect of inflation on unemployment, poorer families and falling living standards could have been ameliorated if the Government had decided to attack it 17 months earlier than they did.

There seems to be a singular lack of positive suggestion of an alternative from hon. Members opposite. I fancy that far from supporting the attack on inflation they are regretting that at last it looks as though it may be succeeding.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 20 per cent. of the people in Scotland live on or below the poverty line, as defined by the Department for Social Services, and that average family income is 2·5 per cent. below the United Kingdom average? There is great disillusionment with the Government, who have failed to look after the weak sections of the community, which are least able to defend themselves against inflation.

I do not think that the Scottish people will find any solutions in the pipe dreams of the party which the hon. Lady represents.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the percentage rise in grocery prices in the 12-months' period to the end of October 1975.

"Groceries", as such, are not an item defined in the index of retail prices.

In my Question I was referring to grocery prices. Does not the hon. Gentleman follow, for example, the Financial Times index of grocery prices, or what the Grocer magazine publishes? Cannot he say more than he has said? Does he not accept that he and the Secretary of State have an obligation to aim for a lower percentage rise in grocery prices over the next 12 months than is shown in the general retail price index?

I am not answerable for the unofficial price indices published by newspapers, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on them, although I read them with interest. The Government have made plain their hope that a selective price restraint scheme will be of benefit in this area, though we recognise the impossibility of concentrating all the benefits on food.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable evidence to show that many large organisations, such as supermarkets, not only offer loss leaders but charge excessive prices for some commodities? Therefore, is there not a case for adding to the system of ranges of prices by having a maximum price for a wide range of consumer goods? We appreciate the difficulties in this regard, but will my hon. Friend consider this suggestion seriously and discuss the matter with the parties concerned?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have introduced a maximum price for subsidised foods, to ensure that taxpayers' money voted for the benefit of the consumer reaches the consumer. During the passage of the Prices Bill we considered the possibility of price ranges being introduced. There would be considerable difficulties in implementing such a scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied that there is no undue profiteering by supermarkets on the sale of sherry.

The Price Code limits the profit that any supermarket can make on its business as a whole. Traders are free to take a higher margin on an individual product such as sherry, provided their margins on other goods are correspondingly lower.

But with such wide price variations as 42p on a bottle of Celebration Cream and 30p on a bottle of Emva Cream, is the hon. Gentleman absolutely satisfied that this is simply a matter of those employing the lower prices using sherry as a loss leader, and that there is no element of profiteering? Is he sure that the very broad range to which I have referred squares with the Price Code?

It does square with the code. I read the points which the hon. Member made in his comments to the newspapers, and in virtually every instance the price he quoted was below the manufacturer's recommended price. I am sure that he would not wish to deny the consumer the advantage of lower prices. I conclude from the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter that he has become an enthusiastic convert to the price information service that we have started, because it is clear that the public stand to benefit from having price comparison information available on a whole range of products.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will prohibit the sale of an invisible ink, the name of which has been supplied to her, in view of its dangerous nature.

My Department is investigating the degree of hazard and will take such action open to it as it considers necessary.

In view of that helpful answer, may I inform my hon. Friend that, on analysing a sample of this liquid, the public analyst found that it contained 10·3 per cent. sulphuric acid, which is above the level constituting a poisonous substance? Is it not, therefore, particularly dangerous in the hands of children, for whom it is presumably intended?

Ban it.

We cannot ban it, because we do not have the power to do so. The supplementary question raises the relevance of the consultative document which we shall produce later this year. My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that this product, like all ink, escapes the Part II provisions in relation to poisons. This exemption was first decided on in the 1930s and as recently as last year the Poisons Board considered that the exemption should remain. However, in the light of the evidence that has come forward we have asked for further investigation, and I am awaiting the Government Chemist's report.

Will the Minister tell the House whether this could be the same invisible ink with which the social contract was written and signed? If so, and if there is any of it still lurking about in his Department, it could prove to be highly dangerous.

I am told that it was used to produce the Conservative election manifesto.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that the movement of import prices during the relevant period will not prejudice the Selective Price Restraint Scheme.

The White Paper made it clear that agreement on the Selective Price Restraint Scheme would be

"subject to unforeseen increases in the costs of materials".

Is the Secretary of State aware that 15 months wasted on the "invisible" so-called social contract and the resulting loss of confidence in the British economy have gravely weakened the pound and that, partly as a result, the imported price of raw materials rose by 3¾ per cent. in October? Is it not likely that these price increases will be working their way through the economy just as the right hon. Lady is trying to get her scheme off the ground?

The hon. Gentleman seems conveniently to have forgotten the extreme speed with which inflation occurred under the administration in which his party led the country two years ago. I shall reply to the Question on the Order Paper by saying that steps have already been taken to make sure that there will be an exemption clause if the price of a particular item unexpectedly rises in such a way as to make it impossible to bring it within the Price Restraint Scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps are taken by her Department to monitor international commodity prices so as to ensure that falls as well as increases in raw material prices are reflected in retail prices in the shops.

Commodity prices are regularly monitored by my Department. The Price Commission keeps its own records, and price indices for different commodities are published in "Trade and Industry". Under the Price Code, falls in raw materials or other costs should be reflected in prices. The Price Commission has taken steps to remind firms of their obligations under the code. My right hon. Friend has asked the Price Commission to study the effect of movements in the price of raw materials on the retail price of goods in the shops.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which is extremely important. Is he satisfied that the fall in commodity prices—which has been considerable over the past 18 months—is adequately reflected in the prices in the shops?

I am satisfied that we have taken all possible steps open to us to ensure that it is reflected, but if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wishes to bring to notice goods or services the price of which he considers should be reduced because of any fall in commodity prices, he should refer the matter directly to the Price Commission for examination.

What steps are the Government taking in anticipation of the increase in commodity prices expected when the recovery in world trade begins?

The measures I have already indicated, and the fact that my Department is engaged in monitoring world prices, should enable us to respond quickly to any such increase as may occur. The hon. Gentleman may be aware, from its report, that the Bank of England is also engaged in considering the operations of the commodity markets.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether reduced retail prices of contraceptive sheaths came into effect on 1st December last; and how much these reductions are.

LRC International has undertaken to specify and publicise maximum retail prices for its principal brands of contraceptive sheaths and to make it a condition of sale that these prices should not be exceeded. Despite rising costs over the period, the maximum prices of the higher-priced products are being reduced from their 1973 levels by 3p a packet of three, and those of the medium-priced brands by ½p a packet of three. The price of the cheapest brand is being held steady. The new price structure came into force on 1st December but it does not affect sheaths which retailers had in stock before that date. The aim of the undertakings is to reduce the company's profits on home sales of contraceptive sheaths to approximately £525,000 in a full year. The comparable figure for 1972–73 was £2,015,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my sources of information reveal that many people do not know anything at all about these price reductions? Is he further aware that in view of the many millions of those things that are sold every month, his admission is very damaging?

I am considerably heartened by my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this subject. The price levels apply to deliveries as from 1st December, and therefore they would be appearing in many of the shops over a period of time, but I also understand that certain chemists have already reduced prices.