asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much time, and how much in salaries and expenses were incurred by inspectors of his Department investigating an electric advertising sign used by Messrs. Zip French Cleaners, Ltd., of Stoke-on-Trent, which is estimated to use 2½ ounces of coal a year.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many solicitors, counsel and officials employed by his Department attended the hearing of an action against Zip French Cleaners, Ltd., at Stoke-on-Trent Stipendiary Court on 21st November; what was the total cost of this action falling on the Ministry; and what was the accusation against the defendants.

A solicitor and two inspectors employed by my Department attended the hearing, and the preliminary inquiry involved two short visits to the premises concerned, and an interview with a director. The legal costs of the prosecution will amount to about £15, but I regret that it is impracticable to estimate the cost of the very small proportion of the time of those officers who were concerned in the routine inquiries.

The charge against the defendants was one of unlawful use of fuel—namely, electricity—for the purpose of advertisement in the course of their business, contrary to Article 5 of the Control of Fuel (No. 3) Order, 1942. Proceedings were taken as a result of the refusal of the defendants to comply with a request to discontinue the use of the sign. The offence was proved, but the case was dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act

As several Government Departments use these signs, could not Ministry officials stop persecuting private traders, for once?

I am continually being asked by hon. Members to enforce this restriction more rigorously, because of the bad psychological effect of advertising lighting.

Is it not rather out of proportion to use a herd of elephants to squash little bunches of flies?

This is a difficult matter. If there is a lot of advertising lighting it has a bad psychological effect with regard to fuel economy. This was a case where we asked the people concerned to stop it, and they refused, so we brought the case against them on those grounds.

Is it not a fact that the electricity in this case was not used for lighting, but merely to drive a motor, so how does the question of lighting arise?