asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. F. S. Cotton, in whose bankruptcy a final dividend of 2s. 4d. in the £, making 14s. in the £ in all as a composition, was pay able to the creditors on 6th May, 1947, is the same Mr. Cotton to whose syndicate the Grantham factories were allocated by his Department in June, 1947.

Yes, Sir.

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade two other questions, the first of which is, whether in view of the disastrous results both to the workers and the shareholders as a result of the cancellation of a decision reached by two of his predecessors, it was wise to allot these factories to a syndicate with this financial backing; and, secondly, in view of the great public and local concern which these allocations have caused, whether he will promise the House to set up an independent public inquiry into the circumstances?

The answer to the first supplementary question is that the financial backing was not that of Mr. Cotton but that of another gentleman, and with regard to the second question, the answer is, "No."

Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether it is quite true that this gentleman headed a syndicate to whom this factory has been allotted? I beg to give notice, in view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the answer, my hon. Friends and I will take an early opportunity of raising this as a matter of urgency.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will identify the members of the group to whom he allocated the factories recently occupied by Grantham Productions, Limited; whether this group has now completed the purchase of the company's assets; and how much working capital is available for production of agricultural tractors;

(2) what experience qualified the group to whom he allocated the factories recently occupied by Grantham Productions, Limited, to engage in the production of agricultural tractors; and what is the estimated production from these factories during the next 12 months.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, made in this matter in the Debate on consumer goods on 26th June. According to my latest information, the acquisition of the assets has not been completed.

What is the reason for all this secrecy? Why, in spite of constant Questions should these names be withheld from the public—why?

I know of no names being withheld from the public or any constant secrecy.

In the statement to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, did not the Parliamentary Secre- tary say that the Board of Trade was satisfied that this group had sufficient capital available not only for the acquisition of the assets, but also for the production of tractors? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still satisfied?

We are satisfied from inquiries we have made in the ordinary course in the City of London that the persons supporting the group had ample financial backing.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman get into touch with the Bankruptcy Department in the Board of Trade and ask them to scrutinise the "London Gazette" in the future?

Several Hon. Members:

rose.

Hon. Members must not rise when the Speaker is on his feet. I am not quite clear how far these Questions are in Order, because notice has been given that this matter will be raised on the Adjournment.

On a point of Order. I did not give notice to raise it on the Adjournment. I gave general notice.

The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to raise the general question on the Adjournment.

No, Sir, with all respect; I said that I would take an early opportunity of raising this matter as a question of urgency.

Are we to understand that if there is a series of Questions more or less dealing with the same subject, and if on the first Question somebody gives notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, that any further supplementaries on the subsequent Questions will be out of Order.

That is a difficult question, because, after all, it is out of Order to ask a supplementary question when notice has been given that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment. On subsequent Questions on the same subject, if there are supplementaries dealing with the same point, surely, they are out of Order. However, it must be a matter for my discretion.

Further to that point of Order. It is obviously a difficult point, but do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling depends on notice having been given to raise a matter on the Adjournment. because my right hon. Friend did not give that notice, but he said, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow, that he would raise the matter as early as possible?

Is it not apparent that the right hon. Gentleman did rise in his place and say that he and his hon. Friends would take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment?

As the hon. Gentleman has raised this question, I think it will be within the recollection of the House that I particularly did not say we were going to raise it on the Adjournment. I said that we were going to raise it as a matter of urgency. Many courses are open to us, and one of them is to put down a Motion to call for a public inquiry.

Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give a Ruling now that this will not preclude any of us from putting down a Motion calling upon the Government to appoint a Select Committee of Inquiry or asking for a judicial inquiry into what we regard as a public scandal.

There is nothing to prevent that. That is perfectly in Order.

On a point of Order. While all this talk has been going en the last part of my second Question has not been answered. May I repeat it to the President of the Board of Trade, if he will do me the courtesy of listening— what is the estimated production from these factories during the next 12 months?

That will depend on what will happen to them.