asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the rebate offered to German shipbuilders on steel, contrary to the agreement reached between the United Kingdom and the German Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make a further statement regarding rebates on steel to West German shipbuilders.

Preliminary reports which I have seen have confirmed the information given in the Press that a private rebate arrangement is at present under discussion between the German steel producers and shipbuilders. I understand that so far the German Government has not been officially informed of these discussions.

The joint statement which my right hon. Friend and Professor Erhard have made concerned only Government action. If either Government were asked to facilitate such an arrangement, that Government would naturally be guided by the principles laid down in the joint statement.

Are we to understand that the agreement reached between the Chancellor and the German Government did not take any account of the possibility of private arrangements being made which might be contrary to the spirit of the agreement?

Of course, arrangements are constantly going on in private industry between one firm and another about rebates of different kinds, but the agreement between the Governments was naturally confined to the sphere of responsibility and the power of the respective Governments.

Is the Economic Secretary satisfied that there is no agreement at all between the West German Government and the steel industry which influences this agreement?

We have been into this with the West German Government, and I can give the hon. Member an assurance that the West German Government have not been consulted in any way in this matter.

Do not the Government propose to take up this matter, however, with the German Government? Is it not really an obvious evasion of the spirit of the agreement reached with the West German Government; and, in view of the fact that the German steel industry is part of the Schuman Plan, would it not be wise to pursue the matter a little further and take the matter up with the West German Government to see if we cannot get it put right?

I do not think there is any question of evasion here. The Schuman Plan is another and very complicated question. I made it clear in my earlier reply that we have been in touch with the German Government in the matter and, so far as action or influence of any kind by either Government is concerned, we are completely agreed on the action we should take.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, in conjunction with the Bank of England, now give immediate consideration to the introduction of a smaller £5 note.

This is a matter for the Bank of England, which is aware of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

As the Bank of England is refusing to do anything about the suggestion, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless make representations to it, as a large number of organisations which have to handle considerable quantities of notes, particularly bank staffs and wages clerks who make up pay packets in industrial establishments, require a smaller and more conveniently-shaped £5 note?

This is a matter within the responsibility of the Bank. I think that my hon. Friend knows that all the points he has just put, and other points, are before the Bank.

Can the Chancellor also be asked to consider the introduction of a more valuable £5 note?

That is another question.

Could my right hon. Friend tell us what is the advantage of a £5 note in its present size and texture, except possibly its distinctive crackle?

Apart from the crackle, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the design of a currency note of this sort has to take into account the desirability of making it very difficult to forge.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Treasury representatives are advising the Chief of Staff at the discussions in Washington.

If the hon. Member is referring to the recent visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to Washington, the answer is "None, Sir."

But is it not absolutely essential that the Treasury should keep a watchful eye on any policy which might involve expenditure, and have not the Treasury been grossly neglectful? Have they forgotten the pledge of the Chancellor to cut defence expenditure, and does he not think that these gentlemen should do it?

For an eye to be watchful it does not need to be transported to Washington.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he maintains the overall restrictions on the use of bank credits in addition to the provisions of the Board of Trade Order, Statutory Instrument, No. 121, 1952.

These restrictions play a useful part in my right hon. Friend's general monetary policy.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered claimants for the distribution of Roumanian and Hungarian assets in this country will receive less than £1,000.

I regret that it is not possible to give any such estimate.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there must be many people in that category and that they are very keen to know how soon they are to hear more?

Yes, I know, but the registers are not complete and an estimate of the kind asked for cannot be made at the present moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the drafting of the Treasury directions on the distribution of the Roumanian and Hungarian assets is now completed; and whether he can state the date of their publication.

The drafting of the Treasury direction on the distribution of the Roumanian assets has now been completed. It will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible. The drafting of the directions with regard to Hungarian and Bulgarian assets has not been completed yet, but my right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to publish them in the course of next month.

Is my hon. Friend able to tell us exactly why the question of the Roumanian assets has taken so long? Further, may I remind him that he said in this House that it would be discussed when it was finally settled, and that as the House will be rising in about five weeks, can we be sure that we shall not have to wait another three months but will be told before the House rises?

One of the reasons delaying the drafting of these Roumanian directions has been the necessity to study the Roumanian ordinances which are complicated. So far as the date of publication is concerned, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Roumanian directions will be published before the House rises, and I have every hope that the same applies to the Hungarian and Bulgarian.

Can the Economic Secretary say to what extent these decisions have been regulated in any way by the need to conclude new trade agreements with those countries?

That is a different matter. This is a question of distribution of assets in the custody of the Custodian in this country. When it comes to trade agreements, it is a question of getting some payment from the countries concerned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Inland Revenue Department to give a decision on the rating assessment of cement works in the area of the Strood Rural District Council, about which he has received correspondence.

The assessment of these works for rating raises difficult questions of valuation which have been the subject of negotiation with representatives of the companies concerned. It is hoped to reach early agreement; failing that the lands tribunal will be asked to adjudicate.

Will the Financial Secretary agree that this has been a very long delay and that the rural district concerned is put to grave embarrassment by not knowing what the decision will be, and we hope that every step will be taken to expedite the negotiations?

I appreciate that, but I imagine that the hon. Baronet will also appreciate that it is very much in the interests of the rural district council to secure that the rating law is properly applied to properties of this kind—such questions as deciding whether a rotary drill is rateable are horribly complex.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for the capital equipment which has so far been sold to private individuals or companies under the Act to denationalise the iron and steel industry, how much compensation was paid therefor at the time of nationalisation, and how much has been paid therefor in the process of denationalisation.

I doubt whether the comparison requested in this question has much significance as it does not involve comparing like with like. But, including Stewarts and Lloyds, the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency has received or is about to receive some £68½ million gross in cash or Government securities. It also retains for future disposal holdings in the companies concerned to a figure of £46·8 million, taken at nominal paid-up values. There will also be added in due course certain other credit items rising out of these transactions, and in particular the Agency retain the shares in the Steel Company of Wales formerly held by one of these companies. The value of the Agency's investment in these companies, based on compensation values as properly adjusted and attributable, is calculated at £108·8 million.

Cutting through all that, is it not perfectly possible, taking into account the changed value of money, to give us the straightforward facts about what they were paid in compensation and what is now being paid, so that, taking into account some of the notorious deals now going on, the public may know what is the loss of money involved in the sale of these assets?

If I gave the hon. Gentleman merely the figures for the amount of compensation paid, without taking into account either additional capital put into the industries concerned, or other changes that have been taking place, I should be misleading him; and I should be making the comparison less favourable from his point of view because, on that basis, the compensation figure would be £106·3 million instead of £108·8 million which I gave him.

Is it not a fact that there has been no loss of public money involved in the transactions which have been completed to date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and that the Realisation Agency has steered a reasonable course in realising the assets which Parliament placed a duty upon it to do?

There are many factors which make a straight comparison at this stage difficult but I agree with my hon. Friend that the Realisation Agency has done a good job for the country.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why, in the instructions on Income Tax forms, it is stated that a person in receipt of United Kingdom income but not resident in the United Kingdom is not liable to Income Tax if he is resident in the Republic of Ireland, but is liable to Income Tax if he is resident in any other part of the world.

Income arising in the United Kingdom is, in general, subject to United Kingdom Income Tax wherever the recipient resides, but under a reciprocal agreement made in 1926 and given the force of law by Section 23, Finance Act, 1926, a person resident in the Republic of Ireland and not also resident in the United Kingdom is exempt from United Kingdom Income Tax on such income.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how an Act passed in 1926, when there was no Republic of Ireland, applies to the present time when there is a Republic of Ireland?

For the simple reason that the rights and liabilities under the then agreement with the then Irish Free State have devolved on the Republic of Ireland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the duties of a private person when appointed county liaison officer to his Department; and what are the qualifications needed for such an appointment.

My Department has no county liaison officers. The duties of my personal liaison officers are principally to interpret the Government's policy to the county agricultural executive committees and other organisations in their areas, and to advise me of any special problems or difficulties that are troubling committees and farmers. For these appointments I have selected men who are prominent and highly respected in agricultural circles.

Would the Minister agree that if he appoints a trader to one of these positions who usually deals in commodities bought by farmers, this trader will have an undue advantage over his competitors in the district?

Oh, no, Sir; certainly not.

Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the liaison officer referred to is more of a food salesman than a farmer?

I am not certain to which liaison officer the right hon. Gentleman refers, but my liaison officers are most distinguished people in their own walk of life, and what I have done is to revive the wartime system which was so successful.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to counter vibrio foetus in the dairy herds of this country.

Vibrio foetus infection is a venereal disease of livestock and is very difficult to treat. The best advice that can be given to farmers is to maintain their herds as self-contained breeding units, or to introduce only maiden heifers and bulls which have never served or to adopt artificial insemination. This very greatly reduces the risk of infection. Research into the disease is going on at my Department's Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge and elsewhere, and information about the disease and methods of control is made available by my Department to farmers and veterinary surgeons.

Can the Minister give some indication when the results of the research will be published? Further, will it be possible to introduce some system of testing similar to tuberculin testing, to give encouragement to people in A.I. Centres?

So far, the results of research have not on the whole been very satisfactory, but research is being continued. There is no doubt that the real remedy lies in preventing the introduction of the disease into a herd.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an estimate of the effect on agriculture at home of changes in supplies and prices resulting from support measures adopted by other countries.

It would be quite impossible to make any estimate such as my hon. Friend suggests.

Is the Minister aware that legislation in other countries has a very real effect on the whole market here and that, whether he likes it or not, he must study the subject? It is useless for him to get up and give an answer like that. It is just hopeless. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter again. It is an absolute outrage.

asked the Minister of Agriculture why no annual report has been issued by the Commissioners of Crown Lands since June, 1939.

This, in common with other annual reports, was suspended as part of the general drive for economy during the war and has not since been resumed.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very autocratic body? As it administers 370,000 acres of State land, the least it might do is to produce a Report. Apparently the administration is carried out almost entirely by one permanent Commissioner. Will the Minister cause a Report to be issued and let us have in it a list of all the Crown receivers? And may that list not contain the name of Messrs, Sanctuary and Son?

Those supplementaries go far beyond the Question, but I would like to say that the Commissioners of Crown Lands are very anxious to publish a Report. As recently as 1951–52 they prepared an omnibus Report covering the eight years to 31st March, 1950, but after consultations with the Treasury about the printing and publication, it was considered that, in view of the continued need for economy, the Report should not be printed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a decision has now been reached to build an additional sugar-beet factory in the South.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he is taking, following the findings of the inter-Departmental committee set up to review the need for a sugar-beet factory in the South of England.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food and I have this week received the recommendations of the group of officials who have reviewed this problem, and the Government's decision thereon will be announced as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that, in the last few years, Hampshire has stepped-up its sugar-beet production tremendously, and that the provision of a sugar-beet factory in or near Hampshire would be of great importance, not only to that county but to British agriculture generally?

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, when considering the matter, such places as Taunton, Salisbury and or Chippenham will be kept in mind to serve the South-West?

Yes, all those facts will be taken into consideration.

Is the Minister aware of the congestion occurring at lifting-time in the factories at Kidderminster and Colwich in the Midlands, and that Warwickshire farmers feel that the only solution is to build another factory in the South-West?

Is the Minister aware that the Kidderminster sugar factory—the largest in the Midlands—operates smoothly and efficiently and that, in spite of its large intake, there is no congestion of any kind?

Will the Minister let this House and the public have the facts of the position before the Government reach a decision?

We must first consider the report we have just received.

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) under what authority the proposed Fatstock Marketing Scheme was returned to the promoters;

(2) when he expects to receive a reply from the promoters of the Fatstock Marketing Scheme to his inquiry whether they wish to proceed with the scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if the sponsors of the Fatstock Marketing Scheme have yet informed him whether they propose to proceed at the present time; and what decision he has reached on holding an inquiry into the objections to this scheme which he has received.

The draft Fatstock Marketing Scheme has not been returned to the promoters. As I said in reply to a supplementary question on 17th June, the promoters have been invited to say whether or not, in the light of the objections to it, they wish to proceed with the Scheme. I expect their reply shortly. If they wish to proceed, a public inquiry will need to be held, and it will then be possible to determine when this should be.

Will the Minister say what the difference is between the recent Government marketing scheme and the present one? Why have any marketing schemes at all or any controls over sales? Is he aware that there are many reports that the Fatstock Marketing Scheme has been abandoned? Can he confirm or deny those reports?

I think that my hon. Friend does not understand the working of the Marketing Acts. Schemes under those Acts are producer schemes, and it is up to the promoters to submit schemes to the Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now have reprinted the Potato Marketing Scheme, 1933.

The Potato Marketing Scheme, 1933, was published in the Potato Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order, 1933, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1933, No. 1186. This is still in print and available.

Is the Minister aware that I am informed that people who are interested cannot get copies because it is not in print?

Copies of Statutory Rules and Orders can be obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the inequalities of drainage rates; and, in view of the representations on the subject, if he will set up an inquiry with a view to the introduction of legislation to remedy this.

Under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, drainage rates are based on the gross annual value for purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts. The correction of any inequalities in Schedule A assessments must await the re-valuation of these assessments.

Is the Minister aware that, in the present circumstances, the very poorest people are being most hardly hit? I have letters from old-age pensioners and from people living in low-situated houses which are subject to the drainage rate while those living a little higher up are getting away scot-free with nothing being done about it.

I answered the Question on the Order Paper. The trouble is that a revaluation is unlikely to take place on practical grounds before the revaluation for general rating purposes is complete, which will not be before 1956.

Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is likely that the Government will do something about the recommendations of the Heneage Committee, which reported about three years ago?

So far as this system is concerned the Heneage Committee—and more recently the Waverley Committee—have advised in favour of present arrangements.

Is the Minister aware that the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) will not be dealt with by any recommendation of the Committee to which he himself refers?

I have given my answer, and any more detailed questions on this subject must be answered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware that many thousands of people in Hull are paying the drainage rate to a canal authority, but the responsibility of the drainage upkeep has already been taken over by Hull Corporation? The people regard it as a swindle. Could the Minister do something about it?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what, under the terms of the agreement dated 6th March, 1951, is the earliest date upon which he can terminate the appointment of Messrs. Sanctuary and Son, estate agents of Bridport, as Crown receivers.

Three months' notice is required to terminate the appointment.

Will my right hon. Friend give this firm three months' notice forthwith?

I have been considering the whole of this subject and have not yet reached a decision. I will deal with the question more fully during the debate.

When my right hon. Friend is considering this subject, will he bear in mind that this firm on 25th April, 1953, wrote to the Commissioners of Crown Lands saying:

"We now think that if the land"—

that is, Crichel Down—

"was offered back in lots to the adjoining owners the total price received would be about £21,000. Please do not let the Ministry know this."

Answer.

There is no point in anticipating the debate on the subject.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what moneys have been paid to Messrs. Sanctuary and Son. Bridport, as receivers for Crown lands in Somerset and Dorset for each of the years ended March, 1952, 1953, 1954, first, for management and rent collection, secondly,

asked the Minister of Agriculture how far, in view of the disclosures in the Crichel Down inquiry, he intends to review the arrangements obtaining under the present system of employing local firms of estate agents and surveyors as Crown receivers on a part-time basis.

The Commissioners propose to arrange for an independent review of the whole system to be undertaken as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will publish a summary of the observations and explanations which he has received from those officials criticised in the Crichel Down inquiry which have caused him to take a less unfavourable view of their actions.

The personal observations and explanations from officials criticised in the Report were made at my request so that I could assess the conduct of those for whom I am answerable.

The firm are Crown receivers only in respect of the Bryanston Estate in Dorset. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the amounts paid to them in the last three years.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether there has been an increasing amount of money paid to this firm during the last three years, and whether it amounts to thousands of pounds a year or hundreds? Could he tell the House that?

The totals are: 1952, £2,225; 1953, £1,848; 1954, £1,622.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a grave suspicion amongst many people in the country that the excuses given by these bureaucrats were extremely idle ones, and would it not be a good thing and fairer to the bureaucrat and the taxpayer who pays him that these excuses should be published, so that we can all judge how idle they are?

I cannot agree with that at all, but I would like to tell the House this. The purpose of the inquiry was to elicit the true facts, and the officials attended to assist this object and not to defend themselves against specific charges. When I received the report criticising the actions of persons for whose conduct I am responsible, I was bound, in fairness to them, to give them an opportunity of commenting before I decided on my assessment of their conduct.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how much of the £34,000 authorised has been spent on equipment on Crichel Down; and whether he will now give instructions for the work to cease and for the whole area to be sold by public auction, subject to the existing tenancy agreement.

Apart from certain preparatory work, no expenditure has yet been incurred and no work is now being done. Any sale of this land would have to be subject to the existing tenancy agreement which contains the obligation to provide fixed equipment. I would, therefore, like more time to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I feel that in all quarters of the House his statement that no expenditure has been incurred will be very welcome? May I ask if he is aware that the majority of property, whether it is agricultural, industrial or urban property, which is sold by auction in this country is sold subject to tenancy agreement, and very little property is sold with vacant possession? Hence I do not see his difficulty.

I cannot add to my reply.

If this 725 acres of land is to be fully and properly cultivated, and if buildings are necessary to ensure good cultivation of that 725 acres of land, will the right hon. Gentleman put nothing in the way of the Crown Commissioners to provide the requisite buildings?

As I said in answer to the Question, I should like more time to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

In the course of his reply to a previous Question, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a forthcoming debate on this matter. Has an arrangement been made for a debate, and if so, is it to be in Government time?

I gave an undertaking in reply to a Question earlier this month that there would be a debate, but as for the arrangements for the debate, that is the prerogative of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

May we have it clearly established that the Commissioners of Crown Lands are constantly dealing in land and are, therefore, quite free to buy or sell, and indeed particularly to sell this Crichel Down property by auction with whatever tenancy restrictions there may be on it?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether it is not also a statutory duty of the Crown Commissioners to invest most of the money at their disposal in the purchase of agricultural land?

The Crown Commissioners are engaged the whole time in the buying and selling of land, both urban and rural. They are really an entirely financial organisation dealing with land. It is perfectly true that they are in a position to sell land. But the tenancy agreement for Crichel Down contains an obligation to provide buildings and other fixed equipment, which may not be broken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will await a final conclusion from the 1922 Committee before he arranges the debate?

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the growing concern at the increasing incidence of accidents on farms; and whether he will take steps to bring the agricultural industry within the accident prevention provisions of the Factories Act.

I am aware of the general concern felt at the number of accidents on farms, and I share it; but I have no information to suggest that the number is increasing. My Department has discussed with the interests concerned certain suggestions for giving effect to the recommendations of the Cowers Committee in relation to agriculture, but I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to reach a decision in this matter?

No, Sir. This is a question of legislation, and I cannot give any indication when it will be possible to introduce it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States several of the states have statutory safety committees in agriculture? Would it not be worthwhile if we were to imitate all the good things from there?

I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to release land at present requisitioned at Great Chalvedon Hall, Pitsea.

Yes, Sir. The land will be released next Michaelmas when the licence to the present occupier expires.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very welcome news, may I ask whether he is aware that I first approached his Department with regard to this land as long ago as August, 1953? Can he say why there has been such a long delay in relinquishing it?

Yes, this land is within the area of the Basildon new town, and it was necessary to consult the new town corporation. We also had to seek the advice of the Agricultural Land Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused to advise Her Majesty to grant a free pardon to Maurice Edwin Ekins, 45, Southville Road, Bedford, in view of the fact that this man was convicted of permitting a person to ride his motor-cycle while uninsured, an offence it was subsequently shown he did not commit and of which the Lord Chief justice said that the court regretted that they could not grant any process because, in the opinion of the court, certiorari did not lie in a case of this sort, but that it was a proper case in which the facts should be submitted to the Secretary of State; and if, in view of these circumstances, he will not reconsider his decision.

It would be contrary to practice to state the reasons on which a decision with regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is based. I can only say that, after making full inquiry and consulting the Lord Chief Justice, I came to the conclusion that the facts were not such as would justify me in recommending the grant of a free pardon, and I can find no reason to modify that decision. In fairness to Mr. Ekins, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement made by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee of the Buckinghamshire Quarter Sessions at the meeting of that Committee on 28th December, 1953.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that, in dealing with this matter, the Lord Chief Justice said that the court regretted that it could not provide the remedy which this man sought? Having regard to the implications of that statement, and the fact that it is not only a small matter concerning the driving of an uninsured motor cycle but a question whether documents purporting to sell the machine were forged—which is a very serious matter—I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into this matter.

I do not want to depart from what I have said, and the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT deals with that aspect of the matter. If the hon. and learned Member has any further point to make on it after he has read the statement, I shall be very glad if he will see me about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the recent unrest, demonstrations and strikes which have taken place among certain firemen in the Glamorgan County Fire Brigade.

I understand that the question which gave rise to these troubles is under consideration through the machinery of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Fire Brigades, and I should prefer to make no comment on this aspect of the matter.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that although the dispute in Glamorgan has now been settled, thanks to some very resolute and courageous action by the county council, what has happened there has raised some very serious problems? It has now been definitely established that the Fire Brigades Union, by threats of physical violence, can stop firemen from turning out to fires? Does not he think that this would be very dangerous in a national emergency, and that urgent action is required by him? All this will be repeated in the Lancashire Fire Brigade, and possibly others.

I still think that it would be better for me not to make any comment on this matter.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) is the general secretary of a break-away firemen's union?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Police practice of handing a small printed form to an accused person is an inadequate method of informing that person of his or her right to, and sometimes need of, legal aid; and what steps he will take to ensure that the information is more effectively given.

I have no reason to think that the present arrangements are inadequate, but I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may care to send me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the charities which are engaged in raising money from the public for the purpose of protecting animals from cruelty and providing for their treatment when sick, having special regard to the overlapping of these societies and to the amounts of the moneys subscribed which are used for salaries and administrative expenses.

No, Sir. The collection of money for this particular charitable purpose does not involve special considerations which would justify a separate inquiry, and the general question of supervising collecting charities was carefully considered and rejected in 1927 by the Committee on the Supervision of Charities, and again in 1952 by the Committee on Charitable Trusts.

Is the Minister aware that the Committee which was set up to consider these organisations reported to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the beginning of 1952 that it would be better, both in the interests of the animals and the better use of the money so generously subscribed by the public, if their activities were combined? Is he further aware that nothing has been done in this regard up to the present time, and that recent events reported in this morning's Press with regard to the R.S.P.C.A. and, a little time ago, to the National Canine Defence League, point to the necessity for some action?

The points raised by the hon. Member in his supplementary question are fresh ones. I shall be very glad to look into them.

In this context, can the apparent somnolence of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) be dealt with?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refuses permission to Patrick Peter George Victor Harlowe, a prisoner in Chelmsford Prison, to start divorce proceedings.

Prisoners are not ordinarily allowed to institute legal proceedings. Exceptions to this rule are made only in special circumstances and I can find no grounds for making an exception in this case.

Why must the Home Secretary be so harsh in the exercise of his discretionary powers? I have sent him all the details of this case. Is not he aware that he would give this man a much better chance to start life afresh if he allowed him to go ahead with these proceedings?

I never like discussing the facts of individual cases in the House, but a similar application made by the same prisoner during an earlier sentence was refused, and he did nothing about divorce proceedings during his two years of liberty before his present sentence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions exist for requiring or encouraging building owners, whether private individuals, limited companies, or public institutions, to incorporate reinforced basements in the buildings which they put up so as to serve as air-raid shelters in the event of hostilities; how many buildings with such reinforced basements have been erected in the last two years for which figures are available; and what provisions are made as to payment of part or all of any additional cost which may be involved in reinforcing the basements of such buildings.

There are at present no powers to require the incorporation of reinforced basements in new buildings, and there is no provision for the payment from public funds of any part of the additional cost where such precautions are incorporated voluntarily by a developer.

Applicants for building licences have in suitable cases been invited by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to incorporate such structural precautions, but I am unable to say how many buildings with reinforced basements have been erected in recent years.

The desirability of having a general requirement to incorporate structural precautions in new buildings has been considered from time to time, both by the late Government and by the present Government, and the matter will be re-examined as part of the general review of Civil Defence plans which is now proceeding.

Is it to be wondered that ordinary people are not wildly enthusiastic about voluntary Civil Defence duties when the Government make such a very dim answer in connection with such an obvious precaution as this?

I do not think so. There is plenty for them to do, apart from this.

In his review of the matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as a major policy objective to increase the number of such reinforced basements and to make them available in peace-time as parking places for cars?

I shall certainly see that that matter is considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why access to the official correspondence in his Department relating to the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde continues to be restricted; and whether he will now deposit these papers in the Public Record Office;

(2) why he has refused to allow the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, North to see the papers relating to the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde, which are in his official custody.

Papers relating to ex-prisoners are withheld from public inspection until sufficient time has elapsed to diminish the possibility of their disclosure giving pain to living persons. I do not think I would be justified in making an exception to this practice in the case of Oscar Wilde.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this correspondence is of considerable interest to students of English penal history and prison conditions in the last century? It concerns a matter which occurred almost 60 years ago, and should it not conform to the declared policy of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in office, that departmental papers down to 1900 should be made available for public inspection?

I cannot think that the aspect mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend in his first sentence would be the primary motive for the disclosure of these documents. With regard to the rest of his supplementary question, I must maintain the position as I have stated it.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the hon. and gallant Member who asked this Question is a prolific writer of articles and books on this subject and is only anxious to augment his own income?

I think it goes far beyond the Question to discuss the merits and the interests of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my request was made for the purpose of conducting a genuine piece of historical research and, further, that access to such papers much later than the year 1897 has been granted to other applicants? Why should an exception be made in this case?

On a point of order. Is not the imputation made by the right hon. Gentleman against my hon. and gallant Friend a thoroughly improper and quite unwarrantable one?

Do you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I was only anxious to point out that hon. Members are frequently in the position of having to augment their incomes?

Am I not right in thinking that it is the desire of hon. Members opposite to augment their incomes at the present time?

Is not the Home Secretary aware that he is creating a precedent in refusing his hon. and gallant Friend or anybody else access to the documents in question? In the ordinary way, would they not already have gone to the Public Record Office? Surely, he must give the House some explanation why he is for ever going to deny people research into this very interesting historical event?

I gave the House what I think is a perfectly reasonable explanation, namely, that I must consider the possibility of disclosure giving pain to living persons. By that I must stand.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile the attitude he is now adopting to the attitude taken in connection with another matter, where the persons are living and were caused great inconvenience?

That was a different matter. That was concerned with trials that were held in camera for reasons of security. The late Government agreed to relax those conditions when the security requirements disappeared, and I have followed their procedure.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would give a Ruling on my point of order in view of the imputation?

It is not proper for an hon. Member to make an imputation against another, or to state that a motive that has not been avowed by a Member has actuated him. It is in order for hon. Members to ask questions about matters in which they are personally interested, and, therefore, I do not think that in this case a point of order arises.

You do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of an imputation against the hon. and gallant Member? In such cases as this, is it not the practice to disclose one's interest?

Not at Question time. I have ruled on this before. I found nothing wrong with putting down the Question, and I found nothing wrong in the remark.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to what local authorities have received or granted applications from keepers of pet shops under the Pet Animals Act, 1951; and, where licences have been granted, as to which local authorities have authorised their officers or veterinary surgeons or practitioners to inspect premises used as pet shops; and how many prosecutions have been instituted for any offence under the Act.

The information referred to in the first two parts of the Question is not available. The number of prosecutions in England and Wales in 1952 and 1953 was nine in all.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the several undesirable factors dealt with during the passage of the Measure are being adequately dealt with? Has he any information as to how animals and birds that remain unsold at pet shops are finally disposed of?

I am afraid I cannot answer the latter part of the supplementary question. As far as my information goes the working is satisfactory, but I shall very willingly look into any points the hon. Member sends me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the question of providing miniature motors for members of the police force who have to use bicycles while on duty.

Lightweight motor cycles are used for patrolling by a number of forces where from the size of the beat or other considerations they are considered preferable to a pedal cycle. As regards motor-assisted pedal cycles, the Commissioner of Police informs me that, having considered the advantages and disadvantages, he has come to the conclusion that on the whole they are not suitable for police purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the punishment of being placed on a diet of bread and water is given to prisoners with a case history of tuberculosis.

No prisoner undergoes dietary punishment unless he has been passed fit for it by the prison medical officer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to amend or curtail the powers of a coroner to commit a person for trial on the findings of the coroner's jury.

I can hold out no prospect of introducing legislation for this purpose.

Without wishing to cast any reflection upon coroners as such, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he agrees that there are many strange anomalies in the existing system of coroners' inquests? Would he also agree that there may be very real injustice done to a man named in the verdict of a coroner's jury who may thereby be committed for trial on as serious a charge as murder or manslaughter, and will he have regard to the fact that the ordinary procedure of our courts of law is not followed and the ordinary rules of evidence, which are designed to safeguard an accused person, do not apply at coroners' inquests?

I think the hon. Member has a very serious point. Quite obviously, what was stated by the Wright Committee in 1936 has much importance, and I shall consider the matter, but it would not have been right to have held out the prospect of legislation at the moment. I will carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman says.

Does not this Question justify looking up and examining again the Report of the Committee of inquiry into inquests of some years ago?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I referred to it in shorthand terms by the name of its Chairman as the Wright Committee. That is the Committee he has in mind. I said that its Report was well worthy of consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Metropolitan Police not to interfere with residents in Petherton Road, Islington, which is an unusually wide road, parking their cars in the middle of the road there during the night.

It is not within my province to instruct the police when to deal with offences and when not. I understand that a number of the residents in this road have complained to the borough council of the indiscriminate parking of vehicles there, and the police have warned a number of persons, both residents and non-residents, for not having the vehicles properly lighted at night.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the nearest garage is about a mile and a half away and that it is a great convenience to people in that road to leave their cars in the road, which is very wide and tree lined?

I am very tempted to ask the hon. Member to use the wide road for having a meeting of his constituents who take the other view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up an independent committee of inquiry into the present conditions at Wandsworth gaol.