asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what figures are available for the number of home accidents arising from electrical faults; and if she will consult the electricity consultative councils with the aim of reducing these accident figures.

The only figures available are those relating to fires in dwellings or to deaths from electrocution arising from electrical equipment or installations which I gave in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) on 15th December 1975.

Is the Minister aware that some of the electricity consultative councils have already expressed concern about the effect of VAT on domestic repairs because it tends to push up prices and so persuades people to carry out their own repairs? The same applies in a case to which I drew his attention recently when there was a high charge for disconnecting a piece of electrical equipment. Would he consult the electricity boards to see whether there can be some reduction in these prices? Could not that—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions already.

Could not that lead to a further reduction in accidents?

I have asked the nationalised industries consultative councils, ROSPA and the British Standards Institute's consumer advisory body whether they can provide any information to support my hon. Friend's suggestion. As yet, not a word of evidence has been forthcoming. I have looked at the details of the individual case that my hon. Friend sent to me and I think that in all the circumstances the board behaved quite reasonably in this instance.

Will the Minister consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because clearly the 25 per cent. VAT rate is absurd for services of this kind?

In correspondence with hon. Members we have said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to look at any evidence that comes forward. For that reason I have asked those concerned with safety to let me have any evidence that they have.

Hear, hear.

I remind the hon. Lady that it was a Conservative Administration which first taxed the servicing of this equipment.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will publish a list showing which of the items in the Price Check Scheme are of special importance in family expenditure.

The list of items included in the scheme, covering roughly 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure, was placed in the Library on 11th February. The total list is important for family expenditure, although some items are more important than others. My right hon. Friend's object has been to get agreement on the inclusion of such items where, at this stage in the fight against inflation, it is possible for the manufacturer and the retailer to give an undertaking that the price in the shops will not increase by more than 5 per cent. in the next six months.

In the light of last weekend's events, is the Minister aware of an old French proverb, which goes "Is it not known in history that the mousetrap pursues the mouse?" Is the Price Check Scheme an effective mousetrap, and what is the mouse?

If the Government are setting any mousetraps, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will blunder into them.

May we return to the realm of reality and precision? Can my hon. Friend give the House some idea of whether the scheme is succeeding? Has it been extended in any way and can he give us some positive comments?

The scheme is broadly succeeding. An increasingly large number of retailers are not only fully cooperating with the undertaking given by the Retail Consortium but are bringing in new items day by day on which they are prepared to give guarantees on price restraint.

What is the scheme costing the taxpayer?

I dealt with the cost to the taxpayer of the advertising and publicity in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Is the Minister aware that there seems to be a fair amount of administrative chaos surrounding the scheme? Some people who are not in the scheme have received triangles but some who are in the scheme have not. Is he aware that many shop assistants know nothing about it and that many shops displaying signs have only a tiny proportion of their goods in the scheme? Does he agree that he could save money simply by dropping the great price restraint circus?

The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately aligning himself with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) in her traditional negativism. The scheme covers about 500,000 retail outlets and, naturally, it is bound to have a number of small hiccoughs at the beginning, but it is plain that it is broadly understood. As the scheme is becoming more widely understood, inquiries from the retail trade are now declining.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she has been asked to widen the scope of her advance warning scheme for price restraint.

The list of items within the Price Check Scheme covers roughly 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure, and it also provides for retailers to add items to the list from their own range when they are satisfied they can keep price increases within 5 per cent. for the period of the scheme. We have been pressed from many sides to widen it, but its scope reflects the stage we have reached in the attack on inflation.

Has my hon. Friend enough information about the Price Check Scheme to consider extending it across a wider range of goods and services? By "goods" I mean, for example, the whole of the textile sector. By "services" I mean the services that will be involved in the expected price rises in public sector industries, increases which make many of our constituents feel that they may soon be paying more for rather less, as in the case of the Post Office.

I am glad to take this opportunity of drawing to my hon. Friend's attention the undertaking of the British Shoe Corporation to bring into the scheme all its goods except where marked. The coporation has made that decision since the scheme was announced. Marks and Spencer has made an offer which covers a number of lines of clothes not included in the scheme. A considerable extension of the scheme has been offered by voluntary groups in respect of their own brands. This has had the effect of widening the scheme in a large number of smaller, independent outlets. Finally, there has been the offer by the National Hardware Alliance to bring in a number of hardware items of great importance in the home.

Before extending the scheme, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his Department has received any notification of prosecution under the Trade Rescriptions Act relating to the television advertisements for the scheme? The advertisements show a balloon clearly marked as the cost of living, reducing in size. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of living is not coming down and that, although the rate of inflation may be coming down, it has still been higher in this country over the past three months than in almost any other country? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a highly misleading and dishonest advertisement?

The advertisement which the hon. Lady has described as highly dishonest was agreed by the Retail Consortium and the CBI. I have no doubt that those bodies will note her words. The advertisement was approved by the IBA. I have received no notification of the sort that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has made an estimate of items which will have to go up in price by more than they would otherwise have done in order to subsidise those items not increasing by more than 5 per cent. under the Price Check Scheme.

I do not expect cross-subsidisation to be very extensive on any goods. Indeed, in my consultations on the Price Check Scheme, representatives of manufacturing industry have repeatedly emphasised that they have limited scope for it, especially in present market conditions. As for goods of importance to low-income families, the trade associations have asked their members to keep to a minimum any price increases on basic household necessities which it has not been possible to include in the scheme.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that there will be some cross-subsidisation? Does she agree that basically the Price Check Scheme is a cosmetic exercise which costs the taxpayer too much money and of which it would be better to dispose as soon as possible?

I have accepted that there may be a limited amount of cross-subsidisation, but I mean limited. That is what the manufacturers and retailers have informed me.

Why has my right hon. Friend not included in the scheme a basic allocation of electricity units and perhaps a lower grade of petrol and paraffin?

My hon. Friend, who is very much concerned in this matter, will know that one of the difficulties about the inclusion of electricity units was the pass-through of raw material prices, which made it impossible for the electricity industry, unlike the gas industry, to commit itself to a 5 per cent. maximum increase up to next August.

What effect will the scheme have on the retail price index? How can the Government hope to monitor the scheme if they will not tell us what the effect will be?

The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand the scheme. It was not chosen for items which appear in the retail price index. There are some items in the scheme which are not factors for the purpose of the retail price index. Where there is a range of goods—such as a range of shoes, a range of clothing or a range of textiles—as distinct from the situation of the category of goods included in the retail price index, one cannot give a precise indication of the effect on the retail price index. But this matter is being monitored, because the Retail Consortium has asked its members to keep notices of what the prices were on the base date and therefore it will be open to consumers to inquire how prices have moved.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that goods included in the Price Check Scheme represent value for money.

I am satisfied that the goods which represented good value for money before the scheme was introduced still represent good value for money. The Price Check Scheme adds the additional factor of the assurance of a measure of price stability over a six-month period.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many manufacturers held back on price increases in 1975 and have necessarily had to implement one in the early part of 1976, which means that they are precluded from the Price Check Scheme? Will he therefore confirm that neither his Department nor the Price Commission will give any impression that brands within the Price Check Scheme are necessarily better value for money than those outside it?

Nothing I have said, or the CBI and the Retail Consortium have said in launching the scheme, was designed to give that impression. The purpose of the scheme is to give reassurance to the consumer that the price of those items which are within it will not increase by more than 5 per cent. in the next six months.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us how it is possible for anyone to discover which goods covered by the scheme have gone up less than they would have done had the scheme not been in existence?

Shopkeepers taking part in the scheme were invited to keep lists of prices applying on the base date to which they could refer if asked by members of the public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) have both raised valid points. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my criticism of the Price Check Scheme has been reinforced by three major newspapers, which have described it as "Prices Con", "Great Prices Bamboozle", and "Whitehall Farce"? Is he further aware that several large department stores have not participated in the scheme? Is he suggesting that they are co-saboteurs of mine and, if so, can he please find some evidence of that? Can the hon. Gentleman—

Order. The same discipline must apply to the Front Benches. That was three supplementary questions.

If there is any misunderstanding about the purpose and working of the Price Check Scheme, I attribute to the hon. Lady a considerable part of the blame, although I am bound to say that she has failed in that as in so many other things. It is not the case that three major retailers have withdrawn from the scheme. That is another misrepresentation which the hon. Lady has taken this opportunity to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she estimates that the Price Check Scheme will have any effect on the Index of Retail Prices; and, if so, what effect.

What is slowing down the RPI is the deceleration of costs, as the pay limit continues to take effect. There can be no mistake that it is slowing down markedly: it increased by 15½ per cent. in the six months before the £6 pay limit came into effect on 1st August last year: in the most recent six months it has increased by 6½ per cent. The Price Check Scheme takes advantage of this deceleration to secure for the consumer positive assurances from the manufacturer, backed by the retail trade, that the price of the goods and services in the scheme will be held within the limit for the next six months.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that very helpful and full reply. However, does she agree that her price scheme is very much of a charade and that the massive increases in the prices of nationalised industries—electricity, post, and so on—will more than outweigh the small benefits which the consumers will receive from her scheme?

The Opposition find themselves in their usual difficulty. One of their more distinguished Front Bench Members attempted during 1972–73 to get a selective price scheme off the ground, and he told the House in October 1973—I do not have the Hansard column number with me—that he was unable to get agreement on a sufficient basis to go ahead with such a scheme. The present scheme is also a selective price restraint scheme with the difference that it is in being. The concept is the same. I do not believe that it was cosmetic then: I know that it is not cosmetic now.

What is the point of having elaborate machinery for the Price Check Scheme in order, as my right hon. Friend says, to decelerate the rate of price increases if every time that happens we have Common Market agreements which accelerate other price increases and thereby push up the retail price index?

I know my hon. Friend's feelings about this matter. He will shortly have an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend who has the full details of the settlement. I do not have the full details and therefore cannot answer his question.

We all like and admire the Secretary of State, but does she realise that it becomes increasingly difficult to defend her in the face of suggestions from retailers in my constituency concerning her little orange triangles which would be uncomfortable and possibly dangerous?

They are not actually orange—they are red—though that may be what the Opposition are trying to do to them should the scheme by any chance succeed. The latest results of the monitoring of the scheme by the Retail Consortium show that 19 of the 21 major retail chains are taking part in the scheme. Well before the scheme started, the other two announced their intention not to do so. The monitoring also indicates that no one has withdrawn from the scheme, despite what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has been saying, and also that three-fifths of the co-operative units have agreed to take part in the scheme and are working it. It is the belief of the CWS that the rest are working it as well. The important vote of confidence which I want—the willingness of industry to carry out the scheme and those engaged in it to extend it steadily—has been given and runs contrary to the hon. Gentleman's experience which, no doubt, comes from talking to a handful of friends in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what the effect will be on the cost of living of the phasing out of food subsidies as envisaged by the Government's cutback in subsidies during 1976–77, 1977–78 and afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on the effect of the forthcoming reduction in subsidies on the price of the main food items.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on which foods she proposes to reduce food subsidies in 1976–77; and whether she will make a statement.

I estimate that subsidy reductions could increase the RPI by about 0·3 per cent. by the end of the financial year 1976–77, but it is impossible to be precise about the figure or to give reliable forecasts for future years. Apart from the butter subsidy, which is to be reviewed in the light of the price settlement in Brussels, we have no plans at present for reducing any subsidies before July 1976.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently pointed out what we have been saying for a long time—that many people on low-wage incomes are taxed whereas those with similar incomes from national assistance are not taxed? Would it not be better to cut back on these subsidies now and to reduce taxa- tion on low incomes so that people may spend their money in their own way than to wait until 1976, 1977 or 1978 to do it?

The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the greatest proportion of the benefit from subsidies goes to those who do not normally pay taxation—namely, old-age pensioners whose only income is the pension. Therefore, the figure is a proportionate improvement of four to one for old-age pensioners getting nothing but the State pension compared with the family on average income. It is only because the Government believe that they are winning the battle against inflation and that the level of inflation and food prices will be much lower later in the year and next year that it is possible to contemplate phasing out subsidies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as a result of the weekend decision in Brussels there will be a sharp increase in prices not only of dairy produce, but of meat? In that situation, does she agree that, far from cutting food subsidies, she should use her strength to maintain them and, indeed, to increase them, especially in the interests of the lower income groups?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of his question is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have already indicated that we shall be reviewing subsidies in the light of the settlements affecting butter and cheese.

I should like to put the same question in a different way in the hope that the Minister will answer it. How can she possibly condone the cutting out of subsidies, which I think is right, with the present price review in Brussels, which will put up the prices of many major foods at a time when, on the Common Market's own admission, most major foods are cheaper outside than inside the EEC? Is it not her job to protect the consumer?

The hon. Gentleman finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. If he believes, as I do, that my job is to protect the consumer, he should have consistently supported me earlier on food subsidies, but he has not done so.

May I urge my right hon. Friend when she reviews subsidies to do her best to convince the Government that if they take off the subsidies prices will rise, that there will be a spate of wage demands, and that the country will be in a much worse state than it is at present?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I should point out that as long ago as November 1974, in reply to a Question in the House, I made it clear that the purpose of food subsidies was to deal with a temporary rapid increase in food prices and that the Government did not take the view that subsidies were necessarily a permanent feature of society.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she next intends to meet the transport users' consultative committees.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what plans she has to meet representatives of the transport users' committees in the near future to discuss the proposed increases in British Rail and London Transport passenger fares.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what recent meetings she has had with the transport users' consultative committee with regard to increased rail fares.

I shall be writing to the Central Transport Consultative Committee, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has published his consultation document on aspects of transport policy, to invite it to discuss it with me.

Does the Minister of State agree that, in his capacity as a Minister in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, he must be concerned with a situation where rail fares have risen by over 80 per cent. in two years and commuter fares are to go up by 17½ per cent. in one year? Will he impress on the Secretary of State that, in a situation where there is no proper competition in city transport and where there is vast overmanning on the railways, the increase in wages can only come through to the consumer in increased fares?

I note that the Opposition seem to be lining themselves up behind a programme of cuts for the railways. No doubt that will be noted elsewhere. However, they must still explain whether they prefer price increases or the cuts in public expenditure for which they cry. They cannot have both.

Is the Minister of State aware that, for example, the single Tube fare from Harrow to the centre of London is now 50p compared with 25p two years ago when this Government came into power? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see what thought for the day she has to comfort long-suffering commuters and consumers of Tube journeys who are now having to face insupportable problems? Does he at least agree with the proposition that, in so far as the London ratepayer ratio is lower in inner London Tube journeys, there are more business men travellers and foreign tourists and that in future increases should be proportionately weighted on inner London fares?

I have already indicated that the responsibility for London Transport rests with the Greater London Council, not my Department. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the fact that the Government have indicated that for the next 12 months they will give a subsidy of about £36 million to help London Transport.

Whatever long-term plans my hon. Friend may have for these consultative councils, in view of recent actions in the Post Office—we have seen the same sort of thing in transport—will he, even in the short term, consider giving these consultative councils more teeth so that they may have some effect on these decisions?

My hon. Friend is in accord with my own views on this matter. The Department has referred the whole subject of the nationalised industries' consultative councils to the National Consumer Council in the hope of being able to strengthen them. I am sure that the House will be only too happy if they can be strengthened.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I put down a Question to the Secretary of State asking whether the recent savage increase in commuter fares could be included in the Price Check Scheme and that the Question was transferred. Will he explain why such an important factor in the cost of living for so many people as these swingeing increases cannot be subjected to the same controls as other price increases?

The selective price restraint scheme was not intended to be another form of subsidy. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the debates that we have had on the various orders on the Price Code and so on relating to the price restraint scheme from which he will see that it would have been impossible for us to consider including a heavy loss maker within the scheme

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on what dates and for how long her two special advisers were appointed.

Dr. Joan Mitchell's current appointment dates from 11th October 1974 and Mr. John Lyttle's from 20th November 1974. Their appointments may be terminated at any time.

Though it is not saying a great deal, is the right hon. Lady aware that she is one of the better Ministers in this Administration? Will she explain why she needs two special advisers whereas the Secretary of State for Employment has none?

I should explain to the hon. Gentleman, taking his compliment in the spirit in which it was offered, that Dr. Mitchell's appointment is part-time and not full-time, and that she will be concerned with certain economic matters which arise in the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the most recent year-on-year rate of inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by what percentage the Retail Price Index has increased since February 1974.

Over the 12 months to 13th January 1976 the General Index of Retail Prices increased by 23·4 per cent. This represents an overall increase of 45·4 per cent. since 19th February 1974.

Is the right hon. Lady's ambition to reduce the rate of inflation to 10 per cent. by the end of the year compatible with the Treasury's policy of allowing the pound to sink without trace?

I do not accept that description of the Treasury's policy. In the past six months the all-items index, omitting seasonal items which can distort the index in either direction, has been running at 6·6 per cent. That is an annual rate of 13·6 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the Government are rapidly approaching the target that they set themselves.

Does my right hon. Friend note that the Opposition have stopped asking for the month-on-month figures now that they are becoming better, and that they now ask for the year-on-year figures? Will my right hon. Friend call upon the mass media to give greater publicity to the month-on-month figures that she has just given?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I suggest that he and my other hon. Friends keep tabling Questions about the month-on-month figures. On all occasions I shall answer by giving the month-on-month and the year-on-year figures, leaving the House to make its own judgment.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that congratulations about a supposed approach towards targets might be premature when the most important matter remains the present weakness of the pound, a weakness reflecting that our rate of inflation is still twice that of our major competitors?

No, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. Our rate of inflation is not twice that of our competitors. That is shown by the six-monthly rate that I have given to the House. However, it is still somewhat above that of most of our competitors, and we need to reduce it nearer to those rates. I am not congratulating myself or my Department. I believe that congratulations are owed to the citizens of this country. They have shown a great deal of restraint in their wage demands and in accepting the £6 limit.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that few congratulations can be offered when after two years of Labour Government prices have risen by over 45 per cent. and when by the end of this summer they will have risen by over 50 per cent.? Is she aware that, whatever happens now, nothing can be done to eradicate that damaging performance and the consequences in hardship and damage to the country? The right hon. Lady will go down in history as having presided over two years of the highest inflation that we have ever known. Is she aware that she is responsible for the consequences and the hardship that will ensue?

It was the hon. Lady's more generous hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who spoke of congratulations, not I, Hansard will show from where the congratulations stemmed. Rather surprisingly, they came from the Opposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable damage is being done to our economy by imports? Does she further agree that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and many of her colleagues would do a great deal to improve the situation if they stopped driving foreign-made cars?

I must leave the latter part of my hon. Friend's question for hon. Members' consciences. It would help the country in its present difficulties if people chose home-produced goods, when available, as far as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many companies have had to make use of the profit safeguard provisions in the Price Code.

The Price Commission publishes full information about notifications and applications under various profit safeguard provisions of the Price Code in its quarterly reports. It would not be possible to break these figures down between individual companies without disproportionate expense.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the Chequers Conference last November the Government undertook to ensure that industry would earn sufficient profits to spur management to expand and innovate and to generate internal finance on which it could base its investment? With profit levels now down to derisory levels, what actions are the Government taking to honour that undertaking?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the investment relief which the Government introduced. The hon. Gentleman's Government did nothing whatever in the way of introducing such relief. According to the claims made up to the end of November, we have given relief worth £348 million. There is scope under the existing code to rebuild some of the existing margins. I believe that that is as a result of our review of the code in1974

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her current estimate of the effects on the profits of the United Kingdom manufacturing and retailing sectors of price controls in the year 1975–76.

Price Commission figures for the period November 1975 are not yet published. The Commission's latest report says that profit margins of Category 1 manufacturing firms in the third quarter of 1975 were 46·2 per cent. of reference levels, compared with 52·4 per cent. in the third quarter of 1974. For distributors the figures were 45·7 per cent. and 58–8 per cent. The decline in profit margins in 1975 were mainly due to the recession.

I accept that the very serious decline in profitability and in the rate of return on capital is by no means all due to the Price Code. However, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that, as and when industry sees the prospect of an economic upturn, fear of a long-term continuation of the Price Code will have a depressing effect on its investment intentions and therefore on expansion? Will she therefore take steps to make clear as soon as possible her long-term intentions towards the continuation of the Price Code?

I recognise that there are problems for industry in looking to long-term return on investment, but the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that in recent discussions in which I took part it was made clear to industry that we would consider very seriously what might be done for investment. I repeat that not all profits invariably go into domestic investment.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that profit in United Kingdom manufacturing industry is only a fraction of what it was 20 years ago and that in some areas price controls will have to be lifted if increased investment in private industry within this country is to be achieved?

The point I was trying to make was that it was very important that, where profits go into investment, in our present circumstances that investment should be at home and preferably in manufacturing. I am sure that the House will agree with that. What needs to be done in respect of the Price Code is to reflect that very considerable priority for the country as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many representations she has received on her consultation document on estate agents.

About 200 so far and, despite a formal closing date of 31st January, I am still receiving comments.

While no doubt the Minister wishes to pay tribute to the honesty of the vast majority of estate agents, can he confirm that the main purpose of any legislation that the Government may choose to introduce would be to protect purchasers of properties against loss of deposits, either through fraud or through the company going out of business? If that is correct, does the Department prefer a system of bonding, or a compulsory contribution to a compensation fund, or perhaps a little of both?

The hon. Gentleman is correct—our prime intention is, of course, to ensure the safety of deposits in the event of bankruptcy and also to protect depositors from fraud. The whole purpose of the consultative document is to establish which is the best method to achieve the purpose. The trust account is one possible formula and the guarantee bond is another. We also feel that possibly a central compensation fund could meet both possibilities of fraud and bankruptcy. We shall now consider the replies that we have received, though we still have not received one from the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested-insurance. At the end of the day, most people accept that there is a need for licensing, and that, too, will be a protection for the consumer.

My hon. Friend will recall that in the late 1960s there was a scheme whereby local authorities experimentally gave lists of houses for sale in their areas. Will he therefore consider with the Department of the Environment the possibility of reviving and extending that scheme so that there is some serious competition with the operations of estate agents?

That is a matter for the Department of the Environment. My rôle is to ensure protection for the consumer who chooses to go through the normal services of estate agencies. Let me now confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) in his supplementary question. The Government recognise that the vast majority of estate agents act with integrity, but for the individual who loses his deposit there is a massive loss, and therefore we have to see that we extend protection as widely as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what target date she has set for the completion of metrication; and if she will make a statement.

In common with consumer organisations and much of trade and industry, I should like to see the metrication programme completed as quickly as practicable in the national interest. I do not envisage a single target date, but under the Weights and Measures &c. Bill which was introduced on 2nd March the Government propose to take power enabling them to phase out or limit the use for legal purposes of imperial units.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. How does he intend to allay public disquiet about metrication, which has forced the furnishing trades to abandon metric measures for curtains and carpets? Is my hon. Friend aware that this public mistrust stems from experience of the phenomenal price rises which followed decimalisation, after the initial monitoring of the price rises? Is he satisfied that similar price rises can be avoided after metrication?

My hon. Friend is quite right to express the concern of many people that conceivably there could be a repetition of what happened with decimalisation. The important distinction between the two is that, whereas decimalisation applied across the whole trading board literally overnight, metrication is moving sector by sector and therefore is more easily monitored. Also, it is subject to the Price Code, and we have the facility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite must bear in mind that their party, when in office, adopted the same policy; it is not as though this were a Labour Government innovation in which they had no part. We can also use unit pricing where necessary to help to protect the consumer.

Shall we keep the pint?

As it is a matter of such great concern to the hon. Gentleman, the answer to his question is "Yes". I have indicated on numerous occasions that I can see no reason why the pint of beer should disappear. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who previously tabled a Question about the dairy industry, is again asking about its prospects, though not in the normal supplementary fashion. The dairy industry has written to the Department—I have only just heard about the letter; I have not seen it yet—asking whether the pint measure can be retained for milk. I see no reason why it should not be retained.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) about the fears of housewives rests on the fact that on the introduction of decimalisation there was often a price levelling upward when there was a broken price? Therefore, will he make it illegal under metrication to level up when a lower price should be fixed?

We must take a reasonable view and ensure that there is no profiteering as a result of metrication. We have had assurances from people in all sectors which have gone metric that they will pass on only the extra costs appropriate to the extra size, because in many instances the new unit will be about 10 per cent. bigger than the previous imperial unit.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be madness to apply metric standards to foodstuffs in the shops when prices are rising so quickly? Does the Common Market place any obligation on us to complete the metrication programme by a specified time? If so, what can we do about it?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government which supported the policy of metrication. He left that Government and rejoined them, so plainly he did not regard metrication as a great deterrent to his participation. He is right to pinpoint the fact of "M-Day", which was accepted by the Conservative Government when they signed the Treaty of Accession. The Conservative Government imposed "M-Day" on this country because they accepted at the outset that goods on shop shelves would have to be in metric units from 1st April 1978 and that the metrication process would have to be completed by the end of 1979. I am having to administer the agreement made by the Conservative Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest available monthly rise in the Retail Price Index; and if she will make a statement.

There was a 1·3 per cent. rise in the General Index of Retail Prices between 9th December 1975 and 13th January 1976. Combined with the year-on-year figure, which has declined for the fifth successive month and now stands at 23·4 per cent., this clearly demonstrates that the Government's anti-inflation policies are succeeding.

Can my right hon. Friend estimate how long working people will be expected to suffer a situation in which prices rise faster than wages? Does she agree that the retail price index will continue to rise as a result of the disastrous Common Market deal made at the weekend which will push up even further the prices of basic foodstuffs?

It is perhaps worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that as at January basic hourly wage rates on a year-on-year basis rose by 26·2 per cent. whereas the RPI rose by 23·4 per cent. It is true that the increase in earnings was below the RPI increase because of short-time working and loss of overtime. There is no doubt that if we do not cope with inflation at the rate at which it was running last year—and the Government are convinced that the policy entered into voluntarily by the TUC is a crucial element in doing so—the greatest sufferers will be the poorest people and not those with the bargaining power to resist.

Will the right hon. Lady answer the question which I put to her earlier? How can she, as a member of the Cabinet and the Minister for consumer protection, possibly condone the Brussels price review, which will cause prices to increase?

The hon. Gentleman tries very hard, but that does not arise on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is taking action to rationalise the consumer advice service to the consumer.

While the Government are providing support for new consumer advice centres and to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux movement, the organisation of local provision of consumer advice services is a matter for local authorities.

In view of the need to contain public expenditure and to avoid the duplication of resources, does the Minister agree that it is better to concentrate on building up existing services, such as the citizens' advice bureaux, than to create too many consumer advice centres? What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to rationalise the services?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's thesis, because the CABs, which provide a marvellous service to the public over a whole range of need, are able to devote only a relatively small proportion of their services to consumer advice work. The new scheme, which we have just brought forward, making £1·4 million available for new advice centres, will make extra advice and information available to about 10 million people and we regard this as valuable at a time when prices are increasing faster than any of us would wish.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of brief regular programmes on, say, BBC television giving Government advice and information on prices?

That goes beyond this proposition. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) seems to object to any advertising on television which is to do with countering inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official engagements for Monday, 8th March 1976.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his engagements for Monday 8th March 1976.

Apart from Question Time, I have no official engagements today.

Does my right hon. Friend know that only last week the chairman of Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd. confirmed that my right hon. Friend was one of the Ministers closely involved in the Chrysler agreement? As he has recently had time to purchase an expensive blazer with gold buttons and to play bridge with members of another place, will my right hon. Friend now find time to put on public record his unique contribution to the Chrysler deal, so that all of us may know—?

Order. I should have stopped the hon. Member before. The Question is about official engagements today.

On the subject of Chrysler, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th January. If my hon. Friend has not come across that reply, I shall be very happy to furnish him with a copy. As to one of the more amusing and characteristically inaccurate flights of fancy on the front page of the Morning Star, I do not think that is of the direct relevance to my official engagements that you might wish, Mr. Speaker.

Will the right hon. Gentleman find time today to interview prospective holders of Government appointments, as presumably he met and knew Sir Richard Dobson before his appointment to British Leyland, even though the responsible Minister did not?

My reply related to official engagements. I hope that hon. Members are not under the impression that my official work for today consists of gratifying the more innocent curiosities of colleagues in the House.

May I return to the subject of my right hon. Friend's official engagements? Has he forgotten that there may be a Division at about 7 o'clock tonight? Will he take part in that?

That thought had already occurred to those briefing me, but I came to the conclusion that it could not be accurately described as an official engagement.