On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to certain words in today's copy of HANSARD. I am sorry that I read them only a short time ago and have therefore not had the opportunity of approaching you about them before now. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said:

"The hon. Member is awake today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1962; Vol. 657. c. 431]

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance about whether it is in order—and I surmise that it is not—for an hon. Member to attribute malice to another hon. Member in what he may have said in his speech.

I will give the House my view. I did not notice or hear the observation when it was made yesterday. It is out of order to impute misconduct of any kind to an hon. Member, save on a substantive Motion. The matter was not raised yesterday, so I suggest that we do nothing whatsoever about it. The hon. Member having raised the point, I hope that there will be no more of this bind of thing which does not add to our general dignity.

asked the Attorney-General if, in future, the number of first registrations of title of building estates where the price paid per acre exceeded £5,000 may be reported in the Annual Report of the Chief Land Registrar, so that more accurate evidence may be obtained of this aspect of inflation.

No.

Surely the cost would be very slight, especially if done as a running matter? The information could be obtained as registrations were made. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that his Chief Registrar said that this was of vital importance for the purchasing of houses in the provinces? Why does not he want the correct information?

The Land Registry has no means of identifying building estates, and, even if it could, the work involved in recording the information asked for would be considerable. As the compulsory registration of land does not yet cover more than a comparatively small part of the country, the information would be of little value.

Why did the Chief Registrar make that observation in his Report? If the matter was of such an erratic nature, why did he put the weight of his Department behind drawing attention to it?

As I told the hon. Gentleman on 8th February, the statement in the Chief Registrar's Report was based not on a statistical record kept at the Land Registry, but simply on observations during the year.

asked the Attorney-General if he will state the principles which guide him in deciding whether or not to authorise prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.

I authorise prosecutions for offences against the Official Secrets Acts in those cases where, having regard to the relevant facts, I consider that it would be in the public interest to institute proceedings.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that staggering Answer, may I ask whether, in making these decisions, he accepts the general principle that the original intention of this Act was to proceed against serious espionage and things of that order, rather than against relatively trivial offences, and least of all for what amounts to political persecution?

The hon. Gentleman is quite Wrong in his observation about political persecution. The Official Secrets Acts are intended to protect official secrets. The actions of the accused in the recent case were, and were meant to be, akin to sabotage, and it was clearly right to prosecute them for the offences with which they were charged.

Does the Attorney-General adhere to the assurance given in this House when the Official Secrets Act was passed that it was intended to deal with cases of espionage, and was not intended to affect the freedom of speech?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Acts in detail, he will see that they cover a wide variety of subjects, including registration of postal addresses and things of that kind. In considering whether or not to prosecute, I must direct my mind to the language and spirit of the Acts and not to what my predecessors said about them many years ago in an entirely different context.

Is the definition of the words "in the public interest" to be left solely to the prerogative of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Would he be good enough to define what is meant by "in the public interest"?

It is not a question of my prerogative. It is a question of my duty, which I do my best to discharge.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider this matter? Does he not appreciate that the present operation of the law has become so farcical as to bring it into supreme contempt? Is it not the case that in the recent proceedings which we all have in mind, the protection offered by the Statute, by requiring the Attorney General's fiat before any prosecution under the Act is taken, is set at naught by the simple device of charging a common law conspiracy where more than one person is concerned, so that that safeguard has gone? Is it not completely farcical for the common law offence of conspiracy to commit offences under the Official Secrets Acts to be allowed to proceed, and people to be sent to gaol for it, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself indicated, according to his Answer to me, that when people did the things they were incited to do. it was not in the public interest to prosecute them under the Official Secrets Acts?

With regard to the first question, I do not think the law has been brought into contempt at all. In relation to this prosecution, there was no question affecting freedom of speech. The accused made no secret of their intentions, and their own literature showed that they contemplated the possibility of being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Acts. With regard to the second point, relating to my consent as to prosecuting or not for an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, my consent was not formally required, but as I told the hon. Gentleman, in fact, my consent was given to the prosecution on the charges preferred against them, because they were preferred by the Director of Public Prosecutions under my authority. In reply to the third question, which suggests that it was somewhat farcical to bring these proceedings, there I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order. Owing to the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I should like to give notice to raise the matter again at a suitable opportunity.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that Members of Parliament who have shown interest: in the question of individual grievances continue to receive correspondence from individuals who allege they have no adequate means of obtaining proper investigation of complaints against authority; and whether he will take steps to implement the proposal of the Whyatt Report for the institution of a British Ombudsman responsible to Parliament.

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no information about the correspondence received by hon. Members on this subject. With regard to the second part, I would refer him to the Answer I gave last week to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).

While appreciating that my right hon. and learned Friend has this matter under consideration, as he said in his Answer, may I ask him if that Answer is not something of a fence-sitting formulary? Is he not aware that individuals aggrieved in this fashion, concerning whom I can pass on to him ample correspondence if he wishes, are, failing an appointment of this kind, apt to take the only constitutional way they have of expressing their dissatisfaction otherwise at the polling stations? Will not he and his right hon. Friends descend from the fence while the fence is still there to descend from?

I would require a very substantial fence, but I am not sitting on one at the present moment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Report, interesting as it is, raises difficult questions of both principle and practice, and the examination of it must necessarily be detailed, and, therefore, must involve some considerable time.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954, in view of the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Cartledge and others v. E. Joplin & Sons Ltd., reported in 1962 I Q.B. p. 189.

No. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee last year under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Edmund Davies to advise them whether legislation is desirable to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions in cases of personal injury, where the injury or disease giving rise to the claim has not become apparent in sufficient time to enable proceedings to be begun within three years from inception. It would be premature to introduce legislation before this Committee has reported.

Will the Attorney-General draw the attention of that Committee to that fact that pneumoconiosis is a disease in which slow and progressive damage may be done to the lungs of a workman without his knowledge, and that if this happens through a breach of statutory duty by his employers, it is obviously unjust that his remedy should be barred after three years when he may not know until later what damage has been caused? Will the Attorney-General please bring the recommendations in this case to the notice of that Committee?

I do not think there is any need to do so at all, because it was on account of cases of this character that this Committee was set up. I am sure that the Committee is fully aware of the problem, for that very reason. It is a problem under its consideration.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that while all their Lordships unanimously rejected the de non apparentibus, et non existentibus, eadem est ratio, two of them expressed the view that the onus of proof remained on the plaintiff to establish the date of non-opposed facts? Will he bear in mind that Lord Justice Pearson specifically, in his concluding words, invited examination of the grave difficulties which would result to plaintiffs under a three-year limit trying to establish claims in the case of a disease which clearly does not manifest itself normally within three years?

That is one of the specific tasks of the Committee, and one hopes that we will have its report by July of this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter that should be dealt with, but it is not easy to find a satisfactory solution.

asked the Attorney-General to what extent it has been the practice of the advisory committee on the appointment of General Commissioners of Income Tax for the area including the county borough of Oldham and the urban district of Chadderton to ask for nominations or recommendations for membership from representative local organisations including the trade union movement.

There have been no appointments of General Commissioners for the Oldham area of the Middleton Division since 1st January, 1960. No question of the Advisory Committee asking for nominations or recommendations has, therefore, arisen. It would not, however, in any event be in the public interest to disclose particulars of the procedure of the Advisory Committee, which is appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to advise him personally and confidentially.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while appreciating both the promptitude and the courtesy of the letter which he has sent me today, its content and mental pabulum are non-nutritional? While I respectfully agree that, in the appointment of directors of I.C.I., the General Commissioners for Income Tax or the Bench of Bishops, political considerations should not predominate, one is aware of the fact that they never seem to produce a Socialist majority.

So far as the General Commissioners of Income Tax are concerned, I think it is very desirable indeed that all questions of politics should be kept outside appointments of the Commissioners—political views and all that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do want, if we can, to get taxpayers from all sections of the community.

asked the Attorney-General what was the date of the most recent appointment of a General Commissioner for Income Tax for the area including Oldham; and when further appointments are contemplated.

The 31st July, 1958. It is not possible to forecast when a vacancy is likely to occur.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the present limit of fourteen is a statutory limit or merely a discretionary limit, and whether vacancies can be made, for example, by simply increasing the number, without statutory intervention?

I think I am right in saying that it is a statutory limit, but I will look into the point.

asked the Attorney-General whether Her Majesty's Government will give effect to the recommendations contained in the latest Report of the Council on Tribunals, namely, that when a Minister proposes to disagree with an inspector's recommendation he will notify the parties to the appeal of his disagreement and the reasons for it and afford them an opportunity for making comments and representations in writing before finally making his decision and, secondly, that when the Minister proposes to depart from the inspector's recommendation, because of fresh evidence on a question of fact, or fresh expert evidence, including expert advice, or the introduction of a fresh issue, the inquiry should, if any of the parties so desire, be reopened and the new evidence or issue should be produced at the reopened inquiry.

The Council's Report was received only last Friday and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is studying it as a matter of urgency with the other Ministers concerned. As my noble Friend has already indicated in another place, he is in full sympathy with the Council's approach to this problem. I must, however, make it clear that the Council's first recommendation does not go as far as the hon. and learned Member suggests, for it is confined to cases in which the Minister disagrees with his inspector either because of some factor not considered at the inquiry or because the Minister differs from the inspector on a finding of fact.

Since the recommendations of the Council are clearly in accordance with natural justice, may we hope for fairly speedy action in this case from the Government?

The Government always act speedily.

asked the Prime Minister to what country the inhabitants of Christmas Island are to be transferred in preparation for the proposed atmospheric nuclear tests; what steps are being taken to find them suitable homes and occupations; and what methods of persuasion are being used in the case of those unwilling to leave Christmas Island.

I am satisfied that the safety arrangements for the proposed nuclear tests are such that it will be unnecessary to transfer the residents of Christmas Island elsewhere.

asked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will propose issuing a joint declaration of their continued faith in, and active support of, the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Organisation.

Both President Kennedy and I have frequently made our attitude to the United Nations clear. We are supporting the Organisation in a great variety of ways. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt understands, I would prefer not to commit myself to the text of any communiqué in advance of my meeting with President Kennedy later this month.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, having regard to criticisms of the United Nations in both countries during recent months, it would be an important corrective if a joint declaration could be issued by the Prime Minister and the President of their continued intention to stand firm behind the United Nations in carrying out its Charter responsibilities?

I will bear that in mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must agree that constructive criticism does not imply a lack of faith.

Have not Her Majesty's Government an exceptionally good record in upholding the Charter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."]—and is not the difficulty that far too many delegations at the United Nations seek to place upon the Charter interpretations which it cannot possibly bear?

I think that that is a problem. We debated this at some length recently.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that supplementary questions of the kind asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) show the need for a firm declaration in support of the United Nations Charter?

My hon. Friend has done very good service himself at the United Nations and, as I remember, in the debate he made a speech which was generally regarded in all parts of the House as useful and constructive.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets President Kennedy, will he remind him that it is more consistent with the principles of the United Nations to remove the restrictions on British shipping?

The right hon. Gentleman has assisted me at least in ventilating this problem.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement about the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference.

Several Commonwealth Prime Ministers have replied to my proposals for the next Prime Ministers' Conference, but I think that it would be courteous for me to wait before making a further statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to strengthen the United Kingdom's negotiations with the European Economic Community to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association, he will direct Ministers primarily responsible to study, and make proposals for, the expansion and freeing of trade and payments reciprocally between Commonwealth countries, to the end that Commonwealth, as well as European, economic unity may be achieved to mutual advantage.

Her Majesty's Government are continually studying ways of expanding trade between Britain and other Commonwealth countries. There are no restrictions on payments for imports from Commonwealth countries into Britain, and most Commonwealth products can be imported free of both Customs duty and of any import restriction. Duties and restrictions imposed in other Commonwealth countries are, of course, matters for the Governments of those countries.

Having regard to Under-Secretary Ball's recent comments in this country on the subject of Commonwealth Preference, is the Prime Minister aware that the prospect of E.E.C. membership might be better regarded in many quarters if it were to result in the strengthening rather than the undermining of, or the placing of a time limit upon, the preferential system of the Commonwealth the national economies of which are complementary to those of Europe?

All those matters are relevant, and, no doubt, will come up during the course of negotiation.

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no decision will be made about entering the European Economic Community until the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth have been able to meet and discuss it?

It is hoped that the Commonwealth Conference, if we can fix a date mutually agreeable to everyone, will be as I have described. There is a precise Question on the Paper for next Thursday in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for which I should prefer to wait.

With reference to the original Question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the uncertainties in the situation which causes a good deal of anxiety is what the consequences of our entering the Common Market will be upon the attitude of Commonwealth countries to their trade with us and the consequent danger that they may prefer to intensify their trading with other countries? Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the necessity of informing the House as soon as possible about those dangers and whether he is satisfied, with the discussion he is having with Commonwealth Ministers, that they are not really serious?

All these matters are matters of almost daily consultation with both officials and Ministers of the Commonwealth. They will come up for full discussion at whatever date we are able to arrange by general agreement for the Prime Ministers to meet.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of public anxiety concerning wastage of British-produced food, what arrangements he is making between the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Pensions, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and others, to establish a joint policy to apply to famine relief oversea, or otherwise, British-produced food surpluses, including processed milk; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, to work out a joint policy for the distribution of surplus milk in processed form to those in need of it, both at home and overseas, including areas of famine.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all milk surplus to home requirements in the hands of the Milk Marketing Board is processed and made available for famine relief overseas, and is not tipped into disused coal mines.

asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that all British agricultural produce which proves surplus to United Kingdom requirements will be offered as a free gift to any international welfare organisation that can make use of it for famine relief.

It is natural that opinion in the House and in the country should be disturbed at food being thrown away when many millions of people are under-nourished. A temporary surplus of skim milk is expected this spring if the weather improves. I have considered with my right hon. Friends whether this surplus could be processed and made available to areas of need. To do this it would be necessary to install additional plant which I am told would cost upwards of £J million and it would produce dried milk to the value of only a few thousand pounds. The plant would lie idle for the rest of the year.

While my right hon. Friend's statement, for which I thank him, will do a good deal to allay the lamentable, even melancholy, impression created in the public mind that we were reverting to the practices of the 1930s, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that this is not a temporary phenomenon and that this surplus has been increasing ever since 1957? In view of the steady and progressive increase in the output of liquid milk, all of which we cannot consume in this country, will not my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements of a more permanent character, looking further into the future, having regard to the fact that this situation is likely to recur on a growing scale in future years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but we must keep the matter in perspective. There is a surplus at certain seasons. There must be a surplus if we are to have sufficient liquid milk during the winter months. We have plant to deal with more than 90 per cent. of it. The question is whether we should have plant, which would work perhaps through the holidays and at other times, to deal with the remaining very small amount which may occur from time to time. That is the problem. As I say, we deal with practically all of the skim milk. It is a question of whether it is worth spending an extra £500,000 to bring the amount of skim milk dealt with up to 100 per cent. That is the only question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Answer is very disturbing indeed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. It is all very well to talk about percentages, but 2 million gallons—

Pints.

of skim milk mean a great deal to many people who are starving. If this situation is likely to occur year after year, does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that this subsidised milk—it is paid for by a subsidy from the Government—should be poured down coal mines? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do what the United States of America are doing and arrange for this milk to be processed and given to U.N.I.C.E.F. for distribution to children who need it?

That is not the point. There are only about 250,000 gallons, not more. There are not 2 million gallons. As I say, there would be difficulty in working these plants through the holidays. Since we already deal with 95 per cent. or more of the skim milk, the question is whether it is worth putting up a plant which would work only a week or two in the year. It is a matter of degree. If we were to do it, I think that there would be an equally strong attack about waste. It is a matter of balance.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reference to Government expenditure of £500,000 is quite unrealistic? Has his attention been drawn to a report in today's Daily Telegraph in which it is stated that a reputable firm of food manufacturers announced that, if it were not for some pedantic and unnecessary Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, it would have been prepared to erect a factory in Northern Ireland at its own expense to process all of this milk and to export it?

I do not know what pedantic Regulations were referred to. They may have been those which protect the holidays of the people.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to predict how much skim or other milk will be surplus to requirements in any year? Will he also make it clear that we are prepared to give this surplus milk to any institution which will take charge of it, process it and distribute it to the famine areas?

Yes, Sir. As I have said, we process more than 90 per cent. of it. I have not the exact figure. We are talking about a tiny proportion. We are considering whether that can be dealt with in some other way, but it is difficult to transport skim milk. That we are looking into. It is a question whether, on a balance between cost and results, it would be worth while or right to do this.

As the Prime Minister said that he would welcome approaches from either welfare societies or private firms, can he say whether, if they approached him, he would be willing to give any such societies or firms either financial assistance or assistance in transporting this milk?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the problem. It is very difficult to transport skim milk. It has to be processed in some form. We should have to put up a plant to process it. As I have said, we have a plant which deals with practically all of it. The only question is whether it is worth our while or anybody else's while putting up extra plant which would probably have to work at times when it would be difficult to keep the plant in full operation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite wrong to call this product milk? It is skim milk which is the residual surplus of butter-making. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is already a surplus of dried skim milk in this country and that it would be quite uneconomic to process this additional quantity of skim milk at present?

I understand the difficulties and I hope that from what I have said the House will realise how tiny and marginal this matter is. It is a question whether it would be worth while incurring additional expenditure to deal with it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem can be repeated every year? Therefore, will he ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to allow the Agricultural Research Council to carry out research into how best this milk can be used? On the wider issue, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that milk producers are rather concerned that the present Price Review will restrict production?

That is another matter. On the particular point, I should be glad to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on whether there is a way of solving this very fractional problem.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in his recent consultations with President Kennedy's adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, on defence, he discussed the advisability of Great Britain retaining the independent nuclear deterrent; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on Tuesday

I have seen that Answer. Would not, the Prime Minister agree that this was more than a case of old pals getting together? Was it not really a case of the special adviser to President Kennedy meeting the Prime Minister of Great Britain to urge on him the need to consider abandoning Britain's possession of the independent nuclear deterrent in order to maintain good feeling among the N.A.T.O. Powers?

No, Sir. The position was exactly as I described it in my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. General Taylor did not ask to see me: I invited him to come to see me.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in all these matters it is better if we do what we think is right rather than what the United States think it right?

We keep in close consultation with the United States and with all our other allies, but the defence decisions we make are matters for Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament.