asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government stands by the principles of the preamble to the Act setting up the Central African Federation.

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the preamble to the Federal Constitution. In that case, the answer is, "Yes, Sir."

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new office, as I did his colleague yesterday? Would he agree that it is an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to see that those who signed the preamble should sincerely accept it? If so, has his attention been drawn to the remarks of the Prime Minister of the Federal Government on 29th July, in replying to a debate, where the preamble was quoted as having been forced—

The Minister cannot be held responsible for statements by a Minister of another Parliament.

On a point of order. The preamble was signed by other Governments as well as our own, Sir, and those Governments have a responsibility to our Government in signing it. Surely, if anything is done on the part of a responsible member of that Government which does not accept the preamble, it would be the duty of our Government to raise the matter with them.

I think that is all rather hypothetical. A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he is administratively responsible. I do not see how he can be responsible for something said by a Minister of another Parliament.

Further to my point of order—because the rights of this House and of the Government are involved—may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any action has been taken by the Government in this matter?

The United Kingdom Government have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister and the Government of the Federation stand by the principles of the preamble. I might also say that the hon. Gentleman has picked out a part of one sentence, and that if he had read the whole speech he would have seen that Sir Godfrey Huggins showed no sign of wishing to depart from the principles of the preamble.

During a debate in this House when the Bill was before it, Viscount Chandos gave the clearest undertaking that it was within the competence of this House to revoke the Constitution if circumstances ever arose which demanded that step. What has happened now is that my hon. Friend has sought to bring before the House information relevant to that statement. The Minister has been allowed to reply to it, to refer to the speech and to say that my hon. Friend sought to misrepresent it without my hon. Friend being permitted to say what he wanted to say. Is that not an intolerable position?

The hon. Member should not use that adjective. The position is that if it were a question before the House of revoking the Constitution, then it would he in order. But it is the rule of the House—and the hon. Member will see how wise is that rule—that Ministers cannot be asked to comment on statements made by a member of another Government which is, at the moment, constitutionally set up.

I appreciate the point you have made, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask whether your Ruling means that no Questions about the Federation can be tabled in this House of Commons?

It does not mean that at all. It is only to try to confine Questions to their primary purpose of cross-examining Ministers on matters for which they are responsible.

On a point of order. Is it not permissible, Mr. Speaker, for someone on this side of the House to ask a supplementary on this important matter.

That is another matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what assistance is at present being received from United Nations technical assistance or from other United Nations agencies, in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland, respectively.

The Administrations of the three territories are aware of the opportunities for assistance provided by United Nations agencies. Applications for assistance have been made to the World Health Organisation and to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, of which two have been accepted and three are under consideration.

I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but as his colleague, the

I shall certainly see that every step is taken to get assistance from the United Nations agencies, but I would remind the House that all three territories receive generous assistance from Colonial Development Corporation funds.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the United States provides 15s. out of every £ given to United Nations assistance funds?

Not without notice, but the United States do certainly provide very generous assistance.

Would it not be in keeping with the principles of the United Nations if Seretse Khama were returned to Bechuanaland and, if he were returned, would it not be a contribution towards seeing that economic affairs there were put in better order?

That is a quite different question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is now in a position to announce the result of the discussions with reference to the proposed railway extension in Swaziland.

I having nothing to add to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 3rd June, in which it was stated that the possibility of constructing a railway from Lothair into the Usutu forest area of Swaziland has for some time been under examination, in consultation with the Government of the Union of South Africa. Any extension beyond that is not at present contemplated.

Has nothing emerged from the 140 days of prolonged cogitation and lucubration which have passed since then? Is there nothing that the Minister can tell the House?

No, Sir. I think, as the hon. Member, and other hon. Members on both sides, may know, there are big schemes for railway and other transport development in Africa south of the Equator. This is a particular case in which there are factors not yet known, and which may not become known for some time, and it is not possible to make a decision yet.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the delegation to the forthcoming Conference on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to ensure that no steps will be taken to make the agreement permanent until the provisions banning new or additional Commonwealth preferences are removed therefrom.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking during the forthcoming General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations to retain Imperial Preference and to uphold the right to grant and receive such preferences as are mutually agreed with Empire countries.

The question of Commonwealth preferences in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has been discussed at a number of Commonwealth conferences in the last two years. There has been general recognition by all Commonwealth countries of the value of existing preferences which, under the terms of the General Agreement, we are at liberty to continue.

But it has been, and remains, the considered view of most Commonwealth countries that it would not be desirable or feasible to ask the foreign countries which are parties to the General Agreement to change the present rules contained in Article 1 of the Agreement affecting discrimination against their goods. They prefer, instead, to consider any individual cases on their merits and where appropriate to seek to deal with them by negotiation or waiver in the G.A.T.T. This is, in the circumstances, the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue.

Is the Minister aware that his scandalous betrayal of Imperial Preference has already quadrupled emigration from Jamaica to this country since the present Government came into power? Will he please look at page 12 of "Britain Strong and Free" and then hang his head in shame?

If I may say so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little harsh on the Government which negotiated this agreement.

If the right hon. Gentleman is going back in history as far as 1947 he should take it back to 1943 when the first committal was entered into on this question by the Coalition Government. Is he aware that the 1947 agreement was a purely temporary one which assumed that there were to be big changes in United States trading policy which have not yet taken place?

I was not attacking the right hon. Gentleman—I was seeking to defend him from his friends. All I was asked was about present policy and I indicated a policy which has the broad support of the Commonwealth as a whole.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what instructions are being given to the United Kingdom delegation to the Geneva Conference to consider the working of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The considered judgment of the Government, which has the general support of organised industry, is that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is an essential instrument for maintaining order and fair play in international trade; and it will be our aim to work for the reaffirmation and, where necessary, strengthening of its provisions, in order that it may play its part in further progress towards wider trade and payments. Instructions will be given to our official delegation in this sense.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the good wishes of all on this side in these negotiations, on the basis of what he has just told us, but will he tell us whether, in the discussions with the Commonwealth Governments, there has been a broad agreed Commonwealth line on the forthcoming conference?

There has. It has been fully discussed both in Washington and in London. In London the officials meeting there discuss the matter with a view to reference to their own Governments who, of course, form independent judgments in these matters, but I can say that, broadly speaking, we are pursuing a common line on these main issues.

Can the Minister say whether Colonial, as distinct from Commonwealth. Governments are in agreement on this?

Yes, Sir. Colonial Governments have been brought into consultation in this matter. There are special problems in relation to the Colonies, affecting them differently from other sections of the Commonwealth. These matters are under discussion with them at the present time to see whether any action can be taken to meet them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total profit earned on behalf of the British taxpayer from the activities of United Kingdom-Dominion Wool Disposals Limited from 1945 to 1954.

The United Kingdom's share of the net profits earned during this period was £86 million.

In view of all the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about losses on State trading and other materials, will he not now pay handsome tribute to this fine profit of £86 million earned for the British taxpayer by State trading?

I shall certainly pay tribute to Sir Harry Shackleton, the former Wool Controller, and to Mr. F. S. Arthur, for the very successful results they achieved. However, in order to do this again we should have to reproduce the same conditions—to start a war, to accumulate over four years a large stock of wool by buying and selling at fixed prices—a procedure which the Commonwealth wool-producing countries would not accept in peace time—and then sell the resulting stock on a rising market.

Since the right hon. Gentleman attributes this very handsome profit to the fact that this wool was first accumulated and then sold on a rising market, will he not equally admit that all the complaints he made about raw cotton were due to the fact that having made profits on a rising market there were some losses on a falling one?

I am not dealing with that, but with this case.

Has the President noticed that all one has to do to make a loss of £20 million on British Road Services is to try to sell a few lorries?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of knitted gloves from Hong Kong at prices considerably below their cost of production in this country is continuing to cause anxiety to British manufacturers; and if he will make a statement on the position.

This problem has been carefully examined in consultation with the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation, since the full discussion on the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 8th April. These products are free of import duty, under the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreement, and it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restrict imports from the Colonies by imposing quantitative restrictions.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that since that Adjournment debate these imports from Hong Kong have increased tremendously? Will he please have the matter looked into again to see whether Japanese goods are not coming through Hong Kong and getting the benefit of Imperial Preference?

I should certainly take any action possible to see that Japanese goods are not getting the benefit of Imperial Preference. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not oblivious to the difficulties in this position and that the Minister of State is to discuss this, among other problems, with the National Association of Glove Manufacturers in the near future.

Does not the President agree that a very large glove industry in Hong Kong is owned by British manufacturers and that it is wrong to assume that they are all Japanese goods?

I did not say all.

There is no question of Japanese goods getting Imperial Preference. This is Hong Kong manufacture, and I have no doubt that some are manufactured by British-owned firms in that Colony.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very disastrous increase in imports? For instance, in the case of woollen gloves the volume imported in August increased 50 times as compared with January? Is he further aware that the home industry has no chance whatever of competing in these goods in price? Would he please give urgent consideration to the only possible solution, namely, a quota restriction?

I am sympathetic with the points which my hon. Friend has very properly put and which he elaborated in the Adjournment debate, but he should remember that the free entry of Commonwealth goods has been a tradition in this country for some time. In fact, the balance of trade in Hong Kong is very heavily in our favour.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that extortionate rates of interest are being charged by some firms on hire purchase transactions since controls were lifted in July; and what safeguards exist under his revised regulations to prevent the seizure of goods when the purchaser fails to pay the instalments.

I have seen allegations that extortionate rates of interest are being charged by some traders. The Hire Purchase Orders revoked in July did not control interest rates. The Hire Purchase Acts provide that no agreement covered by the Acts is enforceable unless the attention of the hirer has been drawn to the cash price of the goods in question before any agreement is signed, and the owner cannot recover possession of the goods once a third of the hire purchase price has been paid without obtaining a court order.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has received to representations made to the United States Government about the grant of further contracts by the United States Army Department for the Chief Joseph and Dalles dams to United States firms despite tenders at lower prices by the English Electric Company.

The United States Government in their reply confirmed that the United Kingdom firm's bids were the lowest which complied fully with the technical requirements, but stated that, after weighing all the factors involved, the bid of the domestic firm was not considered unreasonable under the provisions of the "Buy American Act."

As the right hon. Gentleman has made what he has called representations at the highest level, and as it is now confirmed that British prices were much lower, is this not a really exceedingly disappointing result?

Yes, I think it is an exceedingly disappointing result. I may say that I normally defend Americans and things American, but in this matter I must say that they have fallen below the level of events. They have made various statements about the reform of the "Buy American Act" and of an interim executive order which would put the matter on a fairer trading basis from our point of view, and I hope that they will take some action more consonant with their position as a great trading nation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make further representations in this matter?

I have made all the representations I can in this case. I do not think there is any further matter that I can draw to their attention.

Can we not have a "Buy British Act" which would enable the National Coal Board to buy its heavy opencast coalmining machinery from Ransomes & Rapier, Ltd. of Ipswich, instead of placing orders in America?

I think that if we all pursued these policies the world would become a very much poorer place than it is today.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the grant of a transformer contract for a hydro-electric project in Arizona by the United States Department of the Interior to United States firms; whether he is aware that a British firm had tendered at a much lower price; and what representations he has made to the United States of America on this matter.

Yes, Sir. I have had a report of the circumstances of this case from our Embassy, who were in touch with the United States authorities when the award was under consideration. On the final evaluation, the United Kingdom bid was not the lowest foreign bid; and, while I am disappointed by the decision, I do not propose to make special representations on this case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now request the Monopolies Commission to carry out an investigation into the price structure of petrol and oil in this country, with a view to reduction in prices.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4th May to similar Questions on this subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he has not changed his mind since 4th May?

No, I have been consistent in my mind since that date.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the recent Washington meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

My right hon. Friend and I were glad to have the opportunity of taking part in the recent meeting of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank. These meetings afford a valuable opportunity to review the performance of the institutions and world economic prospects.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the National Land Fund.

No, Sir; not at present.

Before adopting the suggestion made by the Public Accounts Committee, that this Fund should be handed back to the Exchequer, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many purposes, such as the preservation of historic houses and national parks, for which the Fund could be used and which are wholly in conformity with the ideas of the House at the time that the Fund was set up?

My right hon. Friend has read the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, and he will take all matters into consideration before reaching a decision.

Is my hon. Friend aware how delighted we are at the excellent and intelligent manner in which he has answered his first Question? Is he further aware that if he goes on in this excellent manner, we shall not only look forward to his early promotion but we on these benches will do all we can to further it?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that some industrial insurance companies are offering to old-age pensioners who are compelled to surrender their policies, a sum as surrender value less than half the amount of premiums paid over a long number of years; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to deal with this matter.

The owner of a whole life industrial assurance policy is entitled by law to a free policy for a reduced sum assured, if he discontinues payments after five years' premiums have been paid. In practice, the offices generally grant free policies after much shorter periods of payment. I see no need for further legislation, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind I will willingly look into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered his second Question quite so well as the first? Does he not know that many old-age pensioners are now having to sell their assets and are in very dire straits? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I have a case in mind in which premiums were paid for 18 years and that the total amount offered represents 37½ per cent. of the premiums paid; and that a free policy is no good because people need the money and will continue to do so while the present Government permits prices to increase?

I answered the general Question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, and I offered to look into the details of any particular case which he might submit, so I thought that I had not done so badly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage change in profits and dividends, respectively, during 1954 compared with 1953.

No figures can yet be given of profits earned in 1954. As regards dividends, the available reports indicate that the dividends declared during the first nine months of 1954 represented a gross return on invested capital of about 5·9 per cent. compared with about 5·4 per cent. for the same period of 1953.

Is the Minister aware that according to the "Financial Times" gross dividends this year have been increasing four times the rate of wages? Does he think that that situation, together with the high capital profits of the Stock Exchange, is helpful to industrial peace?

My answer was based on the "Financial Times" statistics, and, I think, puts them in their right perspective.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information about the estimated loss of foreign exchange which would be involved by abolishing the restriction on travel allowances altogether as compared with the increases to £100 and £70 as now contemplated.

The loss involved cannot be exactly calculated, but might be considerable.

While I am grateful for the recent concession and also for the consoling remarks of the Chancellor yesterday on the subject, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that increasing numbers of people in all walks of life in this country are now taking their holidays abroad and pay their own expenses? Does he realise the anxieties of these people about the difficulties they experience during these holidays through lack of currency?

My right hon. Friend was glad to be able to increase the amount, and hopes to be able to go further, but the increase in the travel allowance must be weighed against the other competing claims on the balance of payments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on travel allowances; and whether he will authorise a general allowance for the dollar area.

My right hon. Friend has no general statement to make. He will authorise a travel allowance for the dollar area as soon as he feels justified in doing so.

While thanking the Minister for this slight encouragement about the dollar area, may I ask him to press upon his right hon. Friend that very large sums of money are allowed for official travellers? Surely the time has come when a small sum should be allowed to ordinary people.

My right hon. Friend is anxious to grant a travel allowance for the dollar area as soon as possible, but we are still having to restrict a number of dollar imports of great importance, including some raw materials, machinery, and so on, and until the time comes when the Chancellor feels that it would be justified he cannot do anything about a travel allowance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the cost in foreign currency which will be involved in raising the basic travel allowance from £50 to £100.

About £4 to £5 million.

Will the Minister tolerate a slightly involved question, arising from that brief answer? Now that we can spend this large sum on frivolities for certain people, can we take it that in future, when we are asking for much smaller sums for United Nations technical assistance and such like, it will no longer be the plea of the Government that they would like to make an increased contribution but cannot afford to do so, which answer suggests that the Government do not want to spend money on that kind of thing?

I think the hon. Member has failed to distinguish between the Government spending the taxpayers' money and the Government allowing the taxpayers to spend their own money.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a report is expected from the Phillips Committee, set up by him in July, 1953, to review the economic and financial problems involved in providing for old age.

The Committee are at work on their report, but I cannot say by what date it will be completed.

As pledges were given by the party opposite to restore the value of the £, and as the cost of living has risen, why is it necessary to wait for this Committee to report before restoring the value of old-age pensions?

I think that all quarters of the House and members of the public attach a great deal of importance to this inquiry on which Sir Thomas Phillips and his Committee are engaged, and I think it is very desirable that we should see what they have to say.

Does that mean that an announcement regarding the increase in old-age pensions is indefinitely delayed?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation in his forthcoming Budget by which a disability allowance is made to people totally incapacitated by accident or otherwise, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Taxation, Command Paper No. 9105, and proposed as being a minimum of £100.

My right hon. Friend is carefully considering this together with all the other recommendations in the Second Report of the Royal Commission, but I cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to give very sympathetic consideration to this matter at the appropriate moment?

Everyone knows that the Commission's report is of great importance, but I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that this is essentially a Budget question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extension of the security check in the Civil Service.

In 1952, the Government introduced a special security procedure for investigating the reliability of civil servants employed on exceptionally secret work. It was then estimated that, outside the atomic energy field, not more than 3,000 posts would be involved. Experience has shown that further posts need to be included in order to work to a consistent and reasonable definition of exceptionally secret work, and the revised estimate is that about 10,000 posts will be subject to this procedure.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what departments are involved? Can he give an assurance that nobody in the Civil Service will be penalised merely because he holds Marxist opinions, unless there is some reason for thinking that he will take some action deleterious to the country as a result, or unless he is in an exceptionally confidential position?

I could not give a Departmental answer without notice, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been absolutely no change in the policy which was announced 2½ years ago.

Will this not mean a big increase in the Secret Service in order to screen the Civil Service? Will it not also mean an additional number of civil servants, whom the Government are pledged to reduce?

I do not think so. The Secret Service is very efficient.

Would it be correct to assume that this increase in the numbers of people who are to be screened has been the subject matter of discussion with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council?

Yes, that is so.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take in the near future to reduce the high cost of living.

The cost of living depends on many factors which cannot be dealt with adequately in reply to a Parliamentary Question and some of which are outside the Government's control.

The Government, for their part, will continue their various policies designed to provide stable economic conditions and so prevent inflation from forcing up prices. But any positive reduction of the cost of living must come, in the main, from reductions of costs and from increases in productivity, which are primarily the task of both sides of industry.

Is the Minister aware that that is an evasive answer and that the present policy of the Government is denying millions of poor people access to the necessities of life? Will he take steps to rectify that situation?

I cannot accept either of the assertions of fact contained in that supplementary question.

Is not the situation much better today than it was during the years of Socialist misrule?

The hon. Gentleman says that a reduction in the cost of living can only be accomplished through increased productivity. How is it, then, that although we have had increased productivity in the past year it was accompanied by an increase in the cost of living?

The fact is that in the last 18 months the cost of living has gone up three points, which compares very well indeed with the record of the previous Government.

If a reduction in the cost of living is outside the power of the Government, why did the Government make the promises they did at the last election?

It is difficult to answer supplementary questions based on a misinterpretation of what I clearly said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value, in terms of the present index, of the cost of living of the sum of 10s. in 1944, 1934 and 1924.

Taking the internal purchasing power of 10s. as 10s. in 1924, 1934 and 1944, it is estimated that the corresponding figures in September, 1954, would be approximately 4s. 10d., 3s. 11d., and 6s. 6d. respectively.

This estimate is based on the cost of living index for the period before 1938, the consumer price index for 1938–53, and the interim index thereafter.

Does the Minister not agree that two things are shown by his answer, first, the inadequacy of social insurance payments today and, secondly, how desirable it is that, in future, they should be permanently pinned to the cost of living?

I think it shows that when the cost of living rises people whose incomes are fixed feel the effect, and that certainly was true under the previous Administration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture who is the tenant who is farming the requisitioned land at Peace-haven which is now the subject of a compulsory purchase order; how this tenant was chosen; what connection he has had with the agricultural executive committee; how much public money has been spent on this land since the date of requisition; and how much rent has been paid to the freehold owners since requisition.

The requisitioned land concerned at Peace-haven and Saltdean is let on licence to four persons, all of whom were chosen by the East Sussex Agricultural Executive Committee. One licensee of 380 acres, who was chosen in 1946, became a member of a sub-committee and a panel of the Committee three years later. Another licensee of 40 acres, was a member of the Committee when chosen in 1952. He was selected because the requisitioned land adjoins on two sides other land being farmed by him. The total expenditure on the land since it was requisitioned amounts to some £19,000 and compensation rental paid to the known owners amounts to some £4,700.

In view of the expenditure involved, would my right hon. Friend agree that there are other methods of getting efficient agriculture beyond that of taking away people's private property? Will he reconsider this case, following the decision of his predecessor?

I have given a good deal of consideration to these things, and I hope very soon to be in a position to announce my decision about the future of this land.

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is reasonable for an hon. Member to imply criticism of a member of an agricultural executive committee who is putting in a large amount of honorary work?

May I say, Sir, in reply to that remark, that there is no criticism involved?

I do not think it is necessary to accept it as criticism.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the spread of myxomatosis among rabbits in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what evidence he now has that myxomatosis is being deliberately spread in the West Country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now introduce legislation to make the wilful spreading of myxomatosis illegal.

Myxomatosis is now present in all counties in England and Wales but one, and in 28 counties in Scotland. I have read reports about the deliberate spreading of this disease by individuals, but I have no direct evidence of this having been done in particular cases.

The Myxomatosis Advisory Committee considered at a meeting yesterday whether legislation should be introduced to make the wilful spreading of myxomatosis a punishable offence. While reaffirming their view that no attempt should be made to assist the spread of myxomatosis or to introduce it into unaffected areas of the country, the Committee unanimously recommended that, having regard to the course the disease had taken and might be expected to take in the future, no good purpose would be achieved at present by making it an offence for any person to take steps to spread the disease.

In view of the horrible nature of this disease, could the Minister not suggest an alternative method of getting rid of the rabbits?

I agree with the hon. Member that this is a most unpleasant disease. Many of us who have seen rabbits affected by it will feel that, but this is not as simple as it looks. Even considering the humanitarian aspect of it in complete isolation, which, I agree, is very important, I still feel that the present course which has been followed is probably the best.

Has my right hon. Friend any information to confirm the reports that this beastly disease is now affecting other animals?

No. I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the only other animal which might be affected, and about which we have evidence, is the hare. All our evidence shows that the disease does not affect any other animal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension among people who buy, or used to buy, rabbits for food? Could we have a scientific declaration on the matter, about whether it is possible for any of the rabbits affected by the disease to reach the market as food?

That is an important aspect of the matter, and I shall gladly consider the point the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Is the Minister aware that some of the farmers who were in favour of the spreading of this disease before it came in have changed their minds, now that they have seen the horrible cruelty it inflicts, and that public opinion is outraged, not by the destruction of rabbits, but by the cruel destruction of rabbits? Will he not, in spite of the Committee's report, do something to make the wilful spreading of the disease illegal, and to put out of their misery rabbits which are suffering a lingering death?

I know that many different views are held about the right course to pursue in the future. We may have an opportunity to discuss this question on the Pests Bill, which will shortly come before the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement on the incidence of myxomatosis in Cornwall.

Since the first outbreak of myxomatosis in wild rabbits in Cornwall was confirmed on 11th May this year the disease has spread to about two-thirds of the county.

Is the Minister aware that local authorities in Cornwall have had a heavy responsibility in dealing with dead and dying rabbits on the highways and by-ways, and that there is widespread concern at the fact that it has been publicly admitted by some people that they have deliberately spread this disease? Is he aware that public opinion now would favour making that an offence?

In the parts of the county where the disease has been rife I think it has resulted in the almost entire elimination of rabbits. I hope that as far as those parts of Cornwall are concerned, at least, the worst is now over.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law relating to cruelty to domestic animals applies to wild animals when they are in captivity, and that the circumstances in which, according to all the accounts, this disease is being deliberately spread, mean that the law is being permitted to be used for cruelty to wild animals in captivity, since they are taken from, say. Birmingham to North Wales, or some other distant place, while suffering from this horrible disease in order that it may be spread more widely?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether an adequate alternative to the gin trap has yet been found.

The Humane Traps Advisory Committee has examined a number of traps, and the more promising of these will be tested during the next few months. It would be premature to expect the Committee to express a considered opinion as to the merits of these traps at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to protect more fully purchasers of attested cattle, in view of a defect in the present methods revealed in correspondence which has passed between the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne.

I am considering whether any changes can usefully be made in the administration of the Attested Herds Scheme. The main responsibility must, however, rest with the purchasers to see that they obtain attested cattle only from reputable sources and that all animals purchased are accompanied by the official permit identifying the animal. I am taking steps to impress on farmers the importance of this.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I draw his attention to the fact that the correspondence to which I have referred in my Question indicates possible loopholes for sharp practice by cattle dealers? Will he, therefore, do all he can to protect the buyers of attested cattle?

I realise that there are possible loopholes for sharp practice. I am looking into this, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the matter with me.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider amending the regulations governing the call-up of National Service men so that employees of agricultural contractors can be included among the farm workers who are eligible for consideration for deferment on agricultural grounds, in view of the fact that their work is concentrated on cultivating and improving the land.

This proposal has already been considered and found impracticable, as I explained in reply to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) on 23rd July, 1953. The deferment arrangements in respect of agricultural workers are based on the contribution made by the particular worker to the production of food at an individual farm, and it would be impossible to apply this principle to men working for agricultural contractors.

asked the Minister of Labour why it is not possible to defer the call-up of Mr. M. C. Meadows, Beccles, particulars of whom has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lowestoft; whether he is aware that his employer has already two sons serving in Her Majesty's Forces; that the deferment is asked for only until one of these can be returned to his former employment; and that the call-up immediately of this man will inflict hardship on his firm, it having been found impossible to replace this man who, according to the custom of the trade, is still an apprentice.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has written to the hon. Member setting out the circumstances in which Mr. Meadows' deferment can be continued for a further 12 months.

While thanking the Minister for his co-operation in this matter, may I ask whether it does not disclose an undesirable position in his Department, since the age of this boy on leaving school was not known to the authorities, and that the conditions of apprenticeship in his trade were excluded by the Department despite the evidence produced to the Department by the employer and by myself.

As I understand the facts, both the applicant and the employer made a mistake about the date of the commencement of employment, and that misled the Department. I am sure that the mistake was not deliberate, because it was not in their interests.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute a special inquiry into the practices of moneylenders and collecting agents in the Sheffield area in order to see what steps are necessary to protect the unwary from paying extortionate rates of interest.

The Chief Constable of Sheffield informs me that he has received no recent complaints about licensed moneylenders in the city. I am aware of a recent case in which a collecting agent was convicted at the City Magistrates' Court on charges of fraudulent conversion, and while I see no reason to think that any special inquiry is called for, my hon. Friend's Question will, no doubt, serve to call attention to the dangers involved in borrowing money from unlicensed moneylenders.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the report of the Road Research Laboratory that 95 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles exceed 20 miles per hour and about 65·70 per cent. exceed 25 miles per hour, he is satisfied that the police are unable, under present circumstances, to find an effective way of enforcing the 20 miles per hour speed limit for goods vehicles over three tons; and what action he proposes to take.

In 1953, the police in England and Wales took proceedings in 20,293 cases of exceeding the speed limit by goods vehicles of all classes and issued nearly 2,000 written warnings. It is the responsibility of the police to enforce the law as best they can with the resources available to them, and I have no authority to give them any directions on the matter.

In spite of all these prosecutions, what is the use in having a law that cannot really be enforced? Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that chief constables and the police feel very strongly that if they were allowed to take the ridiculous police signs off the tops of their cars, and could go about in plain clothes, they could not only enforce the law—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—they could not only enforce the law, but could also decrease the awful accidents on the roads and save lives?

I can only refer again to the fact that it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the law. I have no authority to direct them how to do it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the nature of the contents of the American children's comics which are now being sold in this country; if he is aware that these periodicals have a demoralising effect on the minds of children, because they help to spread illiteracy and encourage sadistic practices; and if he will now take the necessary steps to prevent their circulation among children in the interests of sound education.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to forbid the printing of children's comics from imported plates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the last few months, and from whom, expressing concern at the continued publication of horror comics; and whether he will consider further legislation to control their publication or importation, in view of the anxiety of teachers and parents about the effects of these publications on the young.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the harm done to children by the distribution and publication of horrific comics; and, in view of the general condemnation, if he is now prepared to take steps to bring to an end the distribution of these papers.

I am aware of the public concern about this matter, to which I am giving very careful consideration.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread condemnation of this type of children's periodical? When he looks into the matter will he consider whether, in view of the vicious nature of these products, their entry should be banned entirely from this country? If that is quite impossible, will he try to find a definition of the word "obscenity" which will bring them within the compass of the law?

The hon. Member will appreciate, I think, that the definition required in the latter part of his question is not an easy matter. Nor is it an easy matter to differentiate between what is objectionable and what is not objectionable. While some of these publications are certainly better not read by children in this country, others are quite unobjectionable, and the difficulty, therefore, is to decide between the two. But I am looking into the matter very carefully and I will do all I can.

Will the Minister bear in mind that newsagents throughout the country, and certainly all of them in North Staffordshire who wrote to my colleague and myself the other day, are very anxious that he should take some action, because they do not want to handle this rather beastly material? They look to him to give them assistance.

I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that they also have some responsibility in the matter. If they feel that they do not want to handle the material, I should have thought that the best thing was for them not to handle it. There is also the question of the responsibility of parents and teachers. Regardless of all that, however, I am looking at the matter and, while I know the difficulties, I will do my best to cope with them.

Would the Minister be good enough to answer the first part of my Question? As this matter has been brought to the notice of his Department for a very long time, will he see that something practical is done and not allow it to continue for a further long period?

I have done my best to assure the House that I will do everything I can. The only representation of which I know personally is that I should receive a deputation in the near future from the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chairman of the Church of England Council for Education. I shall receive that deputation very shortly.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern about this matter throughout the country? Will he give it urgent consideration? We appreciate that he has not yet had very much time to consider it but perhaps he could present a report to the House before Christmas.

I will certainly do my best. I share the concern of everyone in the House and the country. I have seen some of these things, as have other hon. Members, and there is no doubt at all that some action is necessary.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that action has already been taken in America which should in a short time lead to the material no longer being available in this country for these horror comics? Is he also aware of the rather peculiar coincidence of this present campaign against horror comics —the coincidence of this campaign with the launching of two new children's newspapers in this country by the "Daily Express" and the "Daily Mirror"?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any decision has yet been made as to the future of the Civil Defence mobile column at Epsom.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my predecessor on this subject in the course of the debate on civil defence last July.

Do I understand from that reply that the mobile column at present in being in Epsom is to continue in the coming year? As far as I understand it, no statement about that was made in the course of debate.

If the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 5th July he will see a full statement on the future of the column.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the law relating to obscenity in literature.

The hon. Member will appreciate that this is not an easy matter on which to legislate, but I propose to look into the problem as soon as possible.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is widespread concern among the public about a law which permits magistrates to order the destruction of Boccaccio's "Decameron," which has circulated freely for 600 years, which brings reputable publishers into disrepute, and allows profiteers in pornography to escape scot free?

On the whole, on this very difficult question, the law has operated fairly well, with occasional exceptions. There are one or two defects which certainly ought to be looked into and that is what I propose to do as soon as possible.

Does not the Minister agree that the police force are under a very great handicap in this work? Is it not the case that before they can take any action at all they first have to buy a book which they suspect and then have to ask the magistrates for a search warrant; and by the time they come to search the shop the objectionable books have disappeared?

I told the House that there were one or two defects in the law. That is probably one of them. There are, however, other aspects which concern authors and publishers as well, and that is why I think the matter should be looked into.

Will the Home Secretary not agree that at the very least there is urgent need for clarification of the law here since it is impossible to escape the conclusion that decisions depend to an unusual and undesirable extent upon the views of the persons trying particular cases?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement on the known course and scope of Soviet Russian experiments in the field of atomic energy and the hydrogen bomb.

As I have said before, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the extent of our information relating to Russian nuclear weapon experiments. The subject continues to occupy our unceasing attention.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many more months are to elapse before he takes the "immediate initiative" in calling for a high-power conference on this subject?

I am not able to impose any time limit on these prospects or proceedings.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken since last June for the purpose of arranging an interview between himself and Mr. Malenkov of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and what progress he has made on these lines.

As I told the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on the 19th of this month, I have in no way receded from my expression of willingness to meet Mr. Malenkov at some agreed place and rendezvous if the right time and occasion are found. I have nothing to add to that reply today.

Does the Prime Minister not realise that the British people expect him, as he is Prime Minister for the time being, to follow the lead which has been given in this matter by the Leader of the Opposition?

There are at least two parties in this country and I do not think that the British people as a whole consider me absolutely obligated in every respect to follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

In view of the fact that Mr. Malenkov is very much younger than the Prime Minister, would it not be a good idea if he came here?

While it is obviously true that there is more than one party in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all parties in the House gave unanimous support to the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition which called for initiative forthwith by the Government to bring about discussions in relation to this matter? In view of that, will he not reconsider it?

The Resolution has never been absent from my mind. It was carried unanimously by the House, but that was on the understanding that time, place and circumstances would have to be considered.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the great strides made in many European countries in the development of physical culture under the leadership of the State; and, in view of the benefits that a nation can derive from such a policy, if he will consider appointing a Minister of Physical Education; and in what way Her Majesty's Government propose to give a lead to increase the facilities for physical fitness in this country.

It is the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the development of sport and physical fitness. I do not think, however, that the appointment of an additional Minister, presumably with a Department, is either necessary or desirable. The habit of multiplying ministerial offices is not one to be encouraged.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is about time that we had greater emphasis from the Government of the day on the need for physical exercises instead of depending on the present fashion of taking medicine and pills? Since the Government are out to encourage physical fitness, would the right hon. Gentleman say what money they are prepared to give to these organisations which are struggling with their present limited funds to do this job?

That appears to be too complicated a question for me to provide an answer without having the opportunity of consulting in the usual quarters.

In view of the need to enable the Prime Minister to understand the matter, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment next Thursday night.