asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the working party set up under his chairmanship over a year ago to reassess the nature, scope and organisation of Exchequer-financed work throughout Britain on identifying, recording and research into historic monuments and buildings has now completed its investigations; and when he will announce its conclusions.

The group's investigations are completed and I hope to make an early statement of the Government's intentions.

While welcoming that reply, may I ask whether we can have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he hopes that the statement which he will make will introduce some considerable improvement in the present arrangements?

I am very hopeful that the hon. Member will think so when the statement is made.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position regarding the proposal for an amalgamation of the London Museum with the Guildhall Museum.

We have made good progress in discussion with the other authorities concerned and I hope to be able to make a full statement before very long.

Is the hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say where the new museum will be situated?

I must ask the hon. Member to await the full statement. As he knows, I am grateful for his interest in this matter. I hope that it will be possible to make a statement quite soon after the Easter Recess.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the equivalent today of 7s. 6d. dog licences, in view of the fall in the value of money since they were introduced.

Dog licensing was first introduced in 1796 but the present charge dates from 1878. The equivalent today of 7s. 6d. then would be about 32s. 6d.

May I sow the idea in my hon. Friend's mind that this would be a convenient way of raising some revenue? May I ask him to bear in mind that it would be possible for him to exempt old-age pensioners from such a charge but that it is ridiculous to leave it at its present low level?

Obviously we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but this tax was originally introduced, I am told, for quite a special purpose in 1796, to pay for the war with France. While I see my hon. Friend's point about exempting old-age pensioners, they are not the only people who might find it a hardship if the tax were increased. We will certainly bear in mind what he has said.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the first place, there is no war with France to pay for now? Will he also consider the cost of collecting this fatuous tax and whether the game is worth the candle?

I note that one of my hon. Friends wishes the tax to be increased and the other wishes it to be abolished.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many private owners of toll bridges are receiving susbtantial incomes from the collection of such tolls; and what steps he intends to take to ensure that all such incomes shall be taxable in the future.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday afternoon.

Did the hon. Gentleman read the debate on 16th March on this issue? Is he aware that it was then pointed out by at least two of his hon. Friends that in one instance at Selby Bridge in Yorkshire there was a tax-free income of £20,000 a year? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) quoted the case of the Earl of Abingdon receiving a tax-free income, and an unearned income at that, of £6,000 a year? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me, with reference to the Answer which I think the Financial Scretary gave to a Question on 3rd April, in how many cases there are special exemptions from taxation and what is the estimated loss to the Revenue of those exempted cases?

I cannot, without notice, answer the second part of that supplementary question, but I can tell the hon. Member that the number of toll bridges which enjoy exemption under longstanding enactments is five. I am having the matter examined.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in preparing his proposed legislation regarding a capital gains tax, he will have regard to the capital gains that can accrue to share holders when companies make bonus issues in the form of redeemable and negotiable loan stock.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday afternoon.

Does not this mean that the recent issue by Courtaulds of £40 million of its capital profits to shareholders, as part of its bribe to shareholders to resist the L.C.I. take-over bid, will go entirely scot-free and that if it were repeated by another company tomorrow it would go virtually scot-free? Does not this show that the speculative gains tax is a farce and that the Chancellor and his party have no real sense of either equity or social justice?

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position perfectly clear, as reported in col. 982 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's Budget statement. The new charge is to be made on certain realised gains and it is not intended that tax should be levied on an appreciation in value which has not been and may not be realised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expansion he now expects in medical schools during the next five years; and where such expansion will be.

This matter is under discussion between the University Grants Committee and the universities with medical schools.

May we take it that, when the University Grants Committee reports, the Government will accept its report in full? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of medical schools? Can he say whether or not the Government have come to a conclusion about the possibility of Durham University having its own separate medical faculty when separated from Newcastle?

I cannot answer about Durham University. There are already twenty-six medical schools and the foundation of further schools is a matter which would, in the first instance, be for the University Grants Committee to consider. But perhaps at a later stage the hon. Gentleman and I can meet and discuss this matter.

May we be assured that the Government will accept the report of the University Grants Committee, in view of what has happened in the past?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read again the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week, when he made it clear, in his statement on recurrent grants, that the cost to universities of the Government's recent request for an increased intake of medical students will be additional to the current grants made by the Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the reconstruction of the Nash houses in Park Crescent between Portland Place and Regent's Park; and if he will now state whether the same methods can be adopted in regard to the other Nash terraces in the Park threatened with destruction.

The methods adopted in Park Crescent are the same as those approved by the Crown Estate Commissioners for the reconstruction of the Nash houses in Sussex Place, York Terrace West, York Gate West and Clarence Terrace, but they have not been accepted by the London County Council for these Terraces.

Apart from the fact that the reconstruction I have mentioned was perfectly carried out, does my hon. Friend realise that the chief adviser to the London County Council, who opposed these destructive proposals, is a very distinguished architect? Has my hon. Friend approached the Royal Institute of British Architects so as to get the best professional opinion on this proposed alteration?

I cannot answer the latter part of that supplementary question without notice, but I am sure that both my right hon. and learned Friend and the Commissioners will take note of the point my hon. Friend has just made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that he was kept fully informed by the University Grants Committee of the progress of salary negotiations for university teachers from November, 1960, onwards, and that this constituted a commitment entered into prior to 25th July, Why he is not prepared to consider the question of the salaries of university teachers apart from the major effects of the pay pause.

There was no Government commitment prior to 25th July.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the view held by the university teachers? It is obvious that their claim should not have come within the pay pause regulations. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, apart from the folly of not granting this claim, the idea of the Government straining all they can in order to prevent the payment of additional salaries to the teachers is really a very serious matter for the country, and that unless something is done the country will suffer considerably?

This is not a matter which we can debate at Question Time, but it is important. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seriously. The pay pause policy, which was accepted as a disagreeable necessity, would have been impossible if all cases in which salary negotiations were in progress had been exempted. The fact that negotiations were in progress does not, of necessity, constitute a prior commitment. I repeat that there was no prior commitment in this case.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have increased, reduced, or paid the same dividend since his pay pause policy was announced; and how much money was involved in each of the three classifications.

Out of 1,247 dividend declarations by public companies since 25th July last year listed in the Financial Times, 357 represented increased dividends and 890 the same or reduced dividends. I regret that the rest of the information requested could not be extracted without disproportionate work.

On balance, is it not fair to say that the directors of companies have acceded to the Chancellor's request for a dividend pause?

Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the figures I have announced show that that is so.

Is it the Chancellor's policy that dividends paid in 1962 should not increase by more than 2½ per cent. over the previous year?

My right hon. and learned Friend has made it perfectly plain that we are now moving to a new phase of the incomes policy. Neither in the case of incomes nor of dividends could it be right to say that we should go right back to where we were before 25th July last. The proportion of companies announcing increased dividends, as listed in the Financial Times, has been diminishing steadily each month from an average of 56·4 per cent. over the first three months after 25th July to 22·6 per cent. in the last three months. This is not a matter on which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any political points they could usefully make.

Surely it would be unfair—to follow up the question asked by the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay)—to limit dividends increase to 2½ per cent. to those companies which have had to reduce dividends because of reduced profits in the last year?

Again, this is too big a question to debate now, but the point I made was that neither with regard to incomes nor to dividends, nor to incomes of any kind, do the Government believe that we could go back to the position as it was before 25th July. But there can be no doubt that to an increasing extent the trend of dividend has been in full accord with my right hon. and learned Friend's policy. That should be fully recognised by the House and the country.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will the Government allow only a 2½ per cent. increase in dividends in 1962?

It would be very unreasonable to answer that question in isolation. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the White Paper and take note of the answers I have given. I think that that is a completely satisfactory reply on this matter.

As dividends increased by 25 per cent. last year, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to maintain that increase during the present year? As a large number of companies—including Courtaulds, banks and insurance companies—have increased dividends, when will the Treasury take action in this matter?

The hon. Gentleman must try to get Courtaulds off his brain. His figures are inaccurate. He has taken no notice of the trend, which is fully in accord with the Chancellor's policy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to give wider publicity to the fact that the old type of pound note will not be legal tender after May.

Responsibility for this matter lies with the Bank of England. I know, however, that it would be glad if holders of these notes would exchange them through their own banks as soon as possible.

Will these notes be acceptable by the banks after the date specified? Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there may be some old people who are very unlikely to trust either the banks or the Government? Would it not be a hardship—assuming that the banks will not accept these notes after May—if these people, whose sums may not be very big, lost whatever savings they had because of this?

The Bank of England took pains to try to ensure the maximum publicity in this matter. Indeed, its Press release was taken up by most of the national newspapers and by the B.B.C. These notes will remain legal tender up to the 28th May. After then, although they will no longer be legal tender, they will be exchangeable at the head office of the Bank of England.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will give a guarantee that the servicing of loans of territories about to be handed over to Africans, or already handed over, will be maintained.

No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the Governments of territories which will become independent in the future will not keep faith with existing stockholders by observing the conditions upon which stocks were issued, as have other Commonwealth Governments which have attained independence since the war.

Certain sums will be paid over the coming years to the newly independent countries. Would it be wrong to hope that the British Government will keep an eye, during all that time, on this matter to make sure at least that these sums will be paid only after whatever guaranteed servicing of loans has been paid?

I am sure that the Ministers principally concerned will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I would remind him that there have so far been no defaults by Commonwealth Governments which have attained independence since the war.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the representations made to him by the Conference of Professional and Public Service Organisations about the composition of the National Economic Development Council.

My right hon. Friend is writing to Sir Ronald Gould, who approached him on behalf of the Conference, to say that he sees no reason to change the present composition of the N.E.D.C., the members of which are not chosen to represent particular organisations or sections of the community.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will abolish the Purchase Tax on all band instruments manufactured in this country.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will bring dismay to all bandsmen and their supporters? Is he further aware that the music we got yesterday from the windpipe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather sordid and very insipid? Does not he realise that these instruments, to the professional bandsmen, are just like the tools of the workmen and are necessary to them? Is he also aware that many bandsmen give their services voluntarily and are essential to the social life of our community, especially in the villages? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore do something about removing the 25 per cent. tax on all instruments?

I can reply very briefly by saying that it would be quite impossible to differentiate between bandsmen and other musicians in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion of the relevant age-group who have entered universities for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961, and the expected proportion of the age-group for 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965.

As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman is to circulate the figures. Is he aware that good educationists think that the Government are not doing sufficient to increase the number of places in our universities? What are the Government to do for the many thousands of qualified students who are knocking at the doors of our universities but unable to enter because there are not enough places for them? Will the Government do more in this matter?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the speceh of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last Thursday. I congratulate the hon. Member on asking two such different Questions in succession on one afternoon.

That does not alter the fact that good educationists are very worried about the number of places available to young students. What do the Government intend to do? What hope have students when, because they cannot enter a university, they miss their chance in life?

The form of the hon. Member's supplementary questions shows that this is not a subject which can be debated at Question Time. If he looks at the speeches which the Chief Secretary and I made last Thursday, he will see that we are not complacent about the present situation. In answer to his present question I can point out that within a few years from now there will be a sharp and substantial improvement in the proportion of the age groups going to the universities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has arranged to appear both on British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television programmes to explain his Budget proposals.

It has been customary for a number of years for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to accept this invitation.

Was the Chancellor aware that in using both channels last night for statements of wide public interest he was setting a very good example which, in his forthcoming report to the nation, could well be followed by the Duke of Edinburgh?

That question is out of order.

On a point of order. It would be of interest to the House, Mr. Speaker, if you could say why my supplementary question was out of order?

It infringed our rule about criticism of certain persons in Questions. I also thought that there was probably not sufficient Ministerial responsibility. Either ground is sufficient to rule it out of order.

asked the Prime Minister whether an estimate of the approximate number of new cases of leukaemia, bone cancer, and genetic damage likely to be caused by the impending atmospheric nuclear tests over Christmas Island formed part of the scientific basis for the decision to resume testing taken by the President of the United States of America in consultation with Her Majesty's Government; and if he will publish this estimate in HANSARD.

The danger to health which might result from any atmospheric nuclear tests was taken carefully into account when the possibility of resuming tests was considered. As to the extent of the danger, President Kennedy has said that it is estimated that the exposure due to radioactivity from these tests will be less than one-fiftieth of the difference which can be experienced, due to variations in natural radioactivity, simply by living in different locations in the United States.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in answering this Question himself, may I ask him if he will translate into ordinary terms the phrase about one-fiftieth? What does that actually mean in terms of damage, the approximate number of cases, and so on?

I think that his point was that owing to the different heights, the different compositions of the soil, and various other reasons, there was this great variation in different parts of the world anyway between the amount of radioactivity to which people might be subject, and the effect of these tests would be minimal in comparison with that.

With regard to the more precise information which the hon. Gentleman would like, he has no doubt read the United Nations Scientific Committee's first report, and the Medical Research Council's comments on it. They are very difficult to summarise, and perhaps I could call the hon. Gentleman's attention to them again. We are now expecting a second report from the United Nations Committee.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get any estimate from the Russian Government of the incidence of these horrible diseases caused by their last series of tests?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister what date he has suggested to other Commonwealth Prime Ministers for a meeting to discuss Great Britain's negotiations for entry to the Common Market.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 5th April.

Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer does not bear in any way on the subject of my Question? Why is he so furtive about this? Cannot he tell the House what date Her Majesty's Government are proposing for this meeting? Can he assure the House that he is not proposing a date in September, in view of the fact that the Australian and Canadian Governments have already asked for an earlier meeting, and that it is highly desirable, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, that this House should have a chance of discussing the proceedings before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?

The Australian and Canadian Governments have not made any such request. I have made that proposal, to which the great majority of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have replied. One or two have not replied, but their difficulties have nothing to do with the timing of the Conference in relation to the negotiations, but simply with those that naturally arise from the many existing or prospective internal commitments. I think that it would be discourteous of me, when I have made a proposal to the twelve Prime Ministers, and one or two have not yet answered, to make a final announcement until I have had all their replies.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the further consultations he has now had about the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference, he will now give an assurance that no irrevocable decision will be made about the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community until he has satisfied himself that the conditions negotiated are generally acceptable to a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Government have undertaken that no agreement with the European Economic Community affecting the special interests of the Commonwealth will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries. This undertaking was accepted by the House following the two-day debate last August.

That does not answer the Question. Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that he will not make a proposition to this House for entry into the European Economic Community until that proposition has been broadly agreed—we do not say that it should be agreed in every detail—by a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

I think that "broadly agreed" is a very vague term. I should think that the right hon. Gentleman has some experience of that. I have given the fullest undertakings about consultation with the Commonwealth, and about putting our proposals before the House. I do not think that it does service to the Commonwealth or to this House to give undertakings about what our proposals will be in hypothetical circumstances. We do not yet even know the result of the negotiations at Brussels, or what will be the Prime Ministers' reactions.

But cannot the Prime Minister say why, having given this promise to the E.F.T.A. countries—which we applaud—he will not give the same promise to the Commonwealth? Is he not aware that there is widespread feeling about these negotiations in the country, on both sides of the House, and in the Commonwealth? There is nothing hypothetical about the matter, after the Prime Minister's Stockton speech. Will not he, therefore, think again about it and give the same assurance to the Commonwealth as he has given to E.F.T.A.?

The position is quite clear not only to the Commonwealth countries, with whose Prime Ministers I have been in communication, but to everybody here. The first thing to do is to see how these negotiations develop, and then what are the views of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. It will then be the duty of the Government to make proposals to the House, and in the light of what we learn we shall make those proposals. It will then be the duty of the House to form its own opinion of them.

Does the Prime Minister seriously contemplate going into the European Economic Community on terms which are not broadly agreeable to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth? If this is not the case, why cannot he give the undertaking required?

I am not prepared to be caught by a question which is so framed as not to correspond to realities.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is proposing any change in the form and purpose of the proposed Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference; to what extent he proposes that it should be purely consultative; and to what extent he proposes to ask it to assume powers of approval or veto over the actions and decisions of the countries whose Prime Ministers are taking part.

Any change in the traditional form and purpose of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences would be a matter for the Prime Ministers to decide collectively. I do not myself intend to propose the changes referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.

Is there not a danger of building up the Prime Ministers' Conference in the same way as Summit Conferences were built up, and creating the impression that great decisions are to come from this Conference, and causing great disappointment when these decisions, whatever they may be, do not fit in with the expectations of those participating?

I see the right hon. Gentleman's purpose, but of course there is not really an analogy. We have for many years had a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. It has always been our rule to exchange views, to hold discussions, but not to reach decisions binding on the sovereign Governments of the Commonwealth, and I think that has been on the whole a valuable and salutary system for Commonwealth Prime Ministers to pursue in their Conferences

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement about the prospects of holding a high-level conference with the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Praesidium of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to discuss outstanding questions concerning nuclear and conventional disarmament.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now renew his offer to Mr. Khrushchev, made on 3rd September, 1961, that an agreement should be negotiated between the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America not to conduct any more nuclear tests in the atmosphere, such an agreement to be policed by exiting methods of detection without additional controls

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impasse reached on the Geneva subcommittee of the Governments possessing nuclear weapons, he will propose to Mr. Khrushchev and President Kennedy that an international committee of scientists be appointed without delay to report on the most effective system of verification of tests in cases of doubt or dispute.

I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consult President Kennedy with a view to a joint Anglo-American declaration that neither Power will, jointly or independently, initiate nuclear warfare.

No, Sir. The purpose of the deterrent would be nullified if a potential aggressor were given prior notice of what he could do with impunity.

Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of studying the statement made just over a fortnight ago by the United States President, in an interview with a highly respectable journalist—Stewart Alsop—in which the President said that he must retain the right of the West to use nuclear weapons first in certain circumstances? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a very grave statement? Do the British Government agree with it? Does not the Prime Minister's reply mean that he agrees with the President in that statement?

I do not think that it is a very grave statement. It would be much graver if I said, "Oh, well, you can conquer Germany and take France. Italy you can have, and of course you can occupy Belgium and Holland. We might object to your having the south of England, but you can have all the rest." If we give prior notice to an aggressor of what he can get away with, we take away all the purpose of the deterrent.

Can we therefore take it—if we translate those words—that the Prime Minister agrees with the proposition that the Western Powers must retain the right to use nuclear weapons first? Has he also studied the reactions of Germany to the statement by the American President? As reported in The Times a week ago, the Germans regard that statement as a matter of major importance. Was this statement by the American President made after consultation with the British Government, or did the President merely assume that anything he said the British Government would support?

No, Sir. The President's statement is on the lines of others which have been made many times. Surely it is common sense to say that there must be a doubt. The aggressor must not be given am assurance in advance that he can do certain things with impunity.

Suicide is not common sense.

Despite the Prime Minister's vehemence, did not he, last autumn, applaud the reported statement by President Kennedy that the West would not use nuclear weapons first? Did not the Prime Minister say on that occasion how much he agreed with Mr. Kennedy?

I have the President's words here, and they are very similar to the words we have used. He said that it has always been clear that in such a context as a massive conventional attack on Europe which would put Europe in danger of being overrun the West would have to prevent such an event by all available means. It is that statement which I think will prevent the over-running of Europe from taking place.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as part of the policy of the pause—which is the official policy of the West—it is the intention of the West to meet a conventional attack on the enforcement of the pause with conventional weapons only?

Yes, but that is the difference between the enforcement of the pause and being over-run.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation from the staff side of the Whitley Councils for the health services in connection with the new scheme for dealing with redundancy arising from the reorganisation of the hospital service on terms less favourable than those available for employees in comparable posts affected by reorganisation of local government or the water industry.

No, Sir. Measures to deal with any redundancy arising from the Hospital Plan have been discussed with staff representatives and a scheme was published on 8th March.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has hitherto refused to discuss with the health staff associations their very serious objections to the present scheme? Is he further aware that there are about 30,000 public servants who could be affected by the reorganisation scheme, which will affect no less than 1,250 hospitals, and that their natural anxieties have been intensified by a sense of grievance that they are being treated less favourably in this case than other public servants?

I understood that it was generally agreed with the staff that redundancies as a result of the Hospital Plan will be very small. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put any further questions on the details to my right hon. Friend.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been more interference with the Whitley Councils and with joint negotiating machinery in industry during the past six months than there has been since industrial councils started? Will he now set these councils free, and give them the liberty that they had previously to do their own business, so that these matters do not have to be referred to the Prime Minister in this House?

I understand the hon. Member's point, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the redundancy question.

Is the Prime Minister aware not only that this redundancy agreement is quite unacceptable to the staff side but also that it has been the subject of Questions to the Minister of Health, in reply to which he has—inadvertently, no doubt—misled the House? In view of this fact, and if only to try to restore some of the morale of the Whitley Councils, which has been damaged by the Minister of Health, will the Prime Minister reconsider the request for him to receive a deputation?

I have not been asked to receive a deputation.