asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional grants are being made by the Universities Grants Committee to Queen's College, Dundee, following the re-organisation which has recently taken place; and what new Chairs it is proposed to establish there.

Additional grants of £4,000 for the academic year 1954–55, £12,000 for 1955–56 and £20,000 for 1956–57 have been approved for the University of St. Andrew's to meet the cost of academic developments proposed by the University Court both in St. Salvator's College, St. Andrew's and in Queen's College, Dundee. Among the developments contemplated are the establishment of four new Chairs, one of which will be part-time, at Queen's College.

While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him whether he can say what proportion of the moneys will be available for development in Dundee and, in particular, whether the money to be spent in Dundee will be used to develop a faculty of social science there?

I am afraid that I cannot say with any precision what use the University of St. Andrew's will make of the money.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that consideration will be given to some of this money being used to expand the work of the School of Economics at Dundee, which has now become a part of the university?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for the Government to decide precisely how money allocated to the university shall be spent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties in making full use of the new facilities is presented by the number of students; and can he, or the Universities Grants Committee, do anything to increase the proportion of Scottish students at St. Andrew's, Dundee?

That is not a question for me or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardships experienced by people living on fixed incomes covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act, he will introduce legislation authorising a further increase and at the same time abolish the ceiling implicit in the present Act at which such increases can be paid.

Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter is fully set out in the White Paper (Command 9092) issued last March. There has been no change in circumstances since then to modify the conclusion stated in paragraph 44 of that Paper.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have been very busy saying that in the last 12 months we have had an era of increased prosperity? Will he bear in mind that the people referred to in my Question, who have no big powerful group to speak for them, have not had advantage from this new prosperous era, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the position?

I will bear in mind anything the hon. Lady says, but the White Paper published in March did command a broad measure of support.

Not from me.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Board of Customs and Excise will not issue tobacco tokens to a retirement pensioner on the authority of a certificate from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, stating that the claimant, though not in possesion of a pension order book, is in receipt of a retirement pension.

The Tobacco Duty (Relief for Pensioners) Regulations, 1947, made by the previous Administration confines the relief to pensioners who are drawing their pensions by means of a pension order book. As my predecessors under both Governments have more than once explained to the House, the administrative obstacles to extending the relief to pensioners whose pensions are paid otherwise are decisive.

Will the hon. Gentleman look again at this matter, because it seems incredible that no administrative means can be found to make this small concession to old-age pensioners available to all pensioners who are, or who should be, entitled to it?

The hon. Gentleman is asking us to be cleverer than his own Government were. It is extremely difficult to bring into the scope of the tobacco relief the type of person who draws pension for only two or three weeks at a time because otherwise he is working.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution, in sterling, was made available to under-developed countries in 1953 and 1954; and what is his estimate of the sum to be provided for 1955.

Figures are not available in calendar years. In the financial years 1952–53 and 1953–54, £150 million and £165 million, respectively, were made available to under-developed countries and to international organisations working in under-developed countries. The United Kingdom has so far committed itself to make available £169 million in 1954–55. These figures include Governmental finance by way of grant or loan, sterling releases of blocked balances to Colombo Plan countries, and Governmental loans raised on the London market; but they exclude other capital transfers between private persons, or institutions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Alec Randall stated in the United Nations Economic Committee that we just cannot visualise having sufficient capital resources available, nor can we foresee how they may become available, short of a substantial degree of world-wide disarmament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should, therefore, give first priority to arranging a world conference with the object of getting some disarmament in view of the importance of world-wide development?

I agree that the less that is spent on arms the more can be spent on other things. That is a lesson which should be learnt in other countries besides this one.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider particularly the level of the grants to the United Nations special funds in view of the many urgent projects, particularly in regard to world health, which are having to be postponed for lack of finance, for which there is very little provision at the moment?

We consider all the claims as sympathetically as we can, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the amount being provided by the United Kingdom is increasing and is already a very heavy commitment.

Can my hon. Friend say how the figures compare with those for 1949, 1950 and 1951?

I should need notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the high percentage of Arts Council expenditure in London and the fact that Covent Garden expenditure has to be met out of the Arts Council Grant causing this disparity, he will consider treating Covent Garden as a National Opera House on the same basis as the National Gallery or Tate Gallery.

My right hon. Friend would be most reluctant to diminish the valuable part played by the Arts Council in encouraging opera and ballet at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, but he keeps under constant review the form of the financial arrangements to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick in that answer? Does he think it fair that the Arts Council should be publicly castigated by the Public Accounts Committee for the expenditure of money which it is bound to spend because of the Minister of Works? Will he reconsider the position so that the Arts Council can obtain the full value, which it ought to have, of the money which is sent to it for the purpose of spreading art in all parts of the United Kingdom?

I said in my original answer that my right hon. Friend keeps under constant review these financial arrangements, which, I agree, constitute a very real problem, and I do not think there is any easy solution to them.

Is not the hon. Lady asking for an attempt to be made to cover up something to which she apparently does not object, namely, the spending of far too large a proportion of available funds in London rather than in the provinces?

The terms of the Question make clear what my hon. Friend wishes to be done. In the current year the Arts Council is spending on opera and ballet outside London a very great deal more than the figure mentioned in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in some cases contributions in lieu of rates are not made in respect of requisitioned property occupied for the public service; in what circumstances such contributions are made in respect of such requisitioned property; and whether he is satisfied that the omission to make contributions in such cases conforms with the principle adopted by the Treasury Minute of 25th June, 1874, and subsequently reaffirmed, that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with other property.

Contributions are made in respect of all property occupied by the Crown, including requisitioned property. I think that the hon. and learned Member may be referring to the contributions in respect of requisitioned property occupied by the Fighting Services, which continue to be made on the basis of the rateable value at the date of requisition. This shields the local authority from loss of rates, but precludes profit attributable to the emergency.

Is that practice consistent with what was said in the Treasury Minute in 1874, that there should be equality in these matters between Government contributions in lieu of rates and the rates that are paid by the people?

The Question has stimulated me to study with unusual care the terms of the Treasury Minute of 1874, and my answer to the hon. and learned Member is, "Yes, I think it is consistent."

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when contributions are made in lieu of rates in respect of property occupied for the public service, deductions are occasionally made from such contributions on account of services not provided by the local authority; what is the principle on which such deductions are made; and whether he is satisfied that such deductions conform with the principle adopted by the Treasury Minute of 25th June, 1874, and subsequently reaffirmed, that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with other property.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The principle is that the rates upon any property, whether in Crown or private occupation, depend in part on the extent of the services for which the local authority makes provision. The answer to the last part of the Question, therefore, is also "Yes, Sir."

Does that mean that a private ratepayer who does not get certain services is entitled to make deductions from his rates?

No, Sir, he is not entitled to make deductions on his own account from the rates. If the hon. and learned Member has any further questions on this subject, perhaps we could discuss them altogether when he raises the matter on the Adjournment.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter, too, on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the national policy to attract 2 million new savers, he will now consider taking steps to free from Income Tax the interest derived from Post Office savings accounts up to a sum commensurate with other forms of national saving which are tax-free.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the requests that have been made in the country to the people to save more, what consideration has been given to the small investors in Post Office Savings and Trustee Savings Groups for exemption from tax on interest payments.

An investment bearing interest which is free from Income Tax is available to the small saver in the form of National Savings certificates. My right hon. Friend has recently increased the maximum permitted holding of certificates of the current Ninth Issue from 700 to 1,000. I am afraid I could not contemplate extending tax exemption to interest on Post Office and Trustee Savings accounts also.

Surely my hon. Friend is aware that the probe into small savings introduced by the late Socialist Government is extremely unpopular with many savers? Surely he will agree that the extension of National Savings certificate holdings from 700 to 1,000 puts the smaller saver who works through the Post Office Savings Bank at a disadvantage compared with the larger saver? Will he consult the Post Office and Trustees Savings Banks and the National Savings Committee to see whether something cannot be done to devise a scheme whereby something equally attractive can be offered to the really small saver through the offices of these banks?

I am ready to do anything in my power to stimulate savings, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that National Savings certificates are on sale at only 15s. each. Therefore, one has not to be a very large saver to be able to purchase one certificate.

What special virtue have National Savings certificates which is not possessed by the Post Office Savings Bank for the same amount of money saved?

The difference is that if one puts money into a savings certificate one is putting it there for a considerable time, but one can put money into the Post Office Savings Bank and draw it out again within a few days.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the new savings scheme promoted by the National Savings Committee, which gives tax advantages to the employer and the employee, he will also take steps to exempt these savings from Income Tax when they are finally drawn in old age by the beneficiaries.

I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am afraid I could not agree that all income from savings schemes should be entirely exempt from Income Tax, whatever the total income of the recipients.

Will my hon. Friend invite the Chairman of the National Savings Committee to lunch and ask him why it is that there are all sorts of exemptions for people who are working and earning salaries and wages, while so little help is given to people in their old age when they need the benefit from savings, which is to my mind very much more important?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the National Savings Committee has been so kind as to invite me to lunch, and I look forward to an early opportunity of discussing with him all matters that seem to be of benefit to the saving community.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent dollars are allocated for the importation of United States horror comics.

Dollars are made available for single copies of any periodical, which may be imported through the post under open general licence, by persons who pay, or have paid, the overseas supplier direct. Dollars spent on comics, as opposed to other periodicals, are not separately recorded, but the cost is believed to be negligible.

In view of the nature of the publications, can the Minister justify the spending of even a small amount of dollars on their purchase? Will he see what he can do to stop the practice?

I am sorry to think people should spend money upon importing horror comics, but what I could not justify would be the use of exchange control powers for the purpose of censorship.

When the Chancellor allocates dollars for these purposes, does he not consider the value of the imports in question to this country?

That is exactly my point. My right hon. Friend allocates dollars for as many periodicals as he thinks are justified, but he cannot distinguish between one periodical and another.

Does the hon. Gentleman's reply also refer to the expenditure of dollars on the purchase of the plates from which the comics can be printed in this country?

I gather that these plates are paid for on a royalty basis and that there is no separate record of the cost involved. With regard to the provision of dollars, that matter normally flows from the provision of a licence, and licences are dealt with by the Minister of State, Board of Trade.

Surely, it is the fact that periodicals coming into the country are controlled and can be prohibited? Why are these exempted?

Whether or not they can be controlled, that control is not within the foreign exchange control for which I am responsible; it would not be right in operating this control to distinguish between one periodical and another on grounds of taste.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the practice of levying Estate Duty in respect of a house owned and occupied by the deceased on the post-war value of the house, causes hardship in those cases where this value cannot be realised because the beneficiaries have to continue to reside in the house; and whether he will take steps to revive the concession which his predecessors permitted in such cases.

This concession is still in force, but, as my right hon. Friend has explained to the hon. Member in correspondence, its value has diminished, and in some areas disappeared, because the premium on vacant possession has diminished or disappeared. The concession has never given relief in respect of increases over the pre-war value which are not attributable to the factor of vacant possession.

Would the Minister state whether this concession still applies? Is he further aware that great hardship is being caused in Cardiff, where people who have simply been left the home in which they are living are being required to pay Estate Duty, which means selling the home in order to pay the Estate Duty. [Interruption.] Well, it is true. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

The concession continues to operate in all parts of the country where it is still the case that the element of vacant possession at the date of death inflates the value of the house more than it did before the war. I will willingly look further into any individual cases, but the case to which the hon. Member has referred has already been examined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? Is it not the case that the trouble is caused by district valuers tending to attach too inflated values for houses occupied by the dependents of the deceased? Will he examine that aspect of it?

I am quite prepared to continue to examine these cases, but I must say that, in my view, the concession is being rightly applied by district valuers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have put cases to him, that I have evidence of very varying practice in different parts of the country, and that there certainly is evidence of a change of practice in the last six or nine months?

I assure the House that there has been no change of practice, but this is a difficult and highly technical matter. I am certainly ready to look into any individual case which any hon. Member cares to bring to my notice.

In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the drop in the value of the £ sterling from the end of December, 1945, to September, 1954; and what was the rise in retail prices on the same basis;

(2) what was the drop in the value of the £ sterling from July, 1946, to September, 1954; and what was the rise in the retail prices on the same basis; and

(3) what was the drop in the value of the £ sterling from January, 1946, to June, 1947; and what was the rise in the retail prices on the same basis.

I will, with permission, circulate the reply, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, could the Minister tell me whether, in his examination of the problem, he has ascertained what are the rises in percentages on the Treasury index from four years ago to the present time, as compared with the Ministry of Labour index during the same period? Is it his experience that the rise in prices is much the same in both indices?

There are two indices. There is the index of consumer goods and services, which comes out annually, and there is the Ministry of Labour index. In our experience, they move very much in the same way together.

Would my hon. Friend, at the same time, indicate the increase in the value of real wages in the same period?

It seems to be very much the same. The calculation can be made from the same indices.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty in applying Pay As You Earn to the entertainment profession, because of the Inland Revenue Department's finding that, in the main, the theatrical profession have no employers, he will consider holding theatrical agents who make bookings and collect fees responsible for their clients' Income Tax.

The hon. Member's suggestion could not be implemented without further legislation. The whole question to which he refers is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to anything they may say about it in their forthcoming Report.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the disclosures of tax evasion in this House last week have shocked the country, and that I came across many cases of anger among my constituents during the weekend? Can he give us any idea how much is lost by evasion?

I could not say, without notice, how much is lost by evasion, but, of course, some of these large sums mentioned in the papers do get collected in due course. I thought I made clear to the House a week ago how strongly I personally feel on this question of tax evasion.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this ignorance on his part is a mockery to every taxpayer in the country?

Even though there are great practical difficulties in the matter, will not the hon. Gentleman nevertheless look at it very seriously to see if some improvement can be made?

Yes, Sir; I should like to tell the House that I was looking into this matter before the Question appeared on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Ministers have declined to accept the additional £1,000 per annum salary.

The full salaries authorised by statute become payable this month. If any Minister wishes to draw less, he will doubtless instruct his accounting officer accordingly.

Would it not be a good gesture if the Minister of National Insurance were to decline to accept the extra £20 a week until something has been done to help the old-age pensioners?

Particularly on so delicate a matter as this, I do not think I can be expected to answer for other Ministers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint a committee to consider the list of securities authorised for the invest- ment of trust funds, with a view to the scope of the list being extended.

The Government have still under consideration the recommendations of the Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts on this matter. I do not think there is any need to appoint a special committee to consider the question further.

Is the Minister aware that, in the unhappy but unlikely event of the party opposite winning the next General Election, there would be widespread loss of confidence and possible fluctuations in the value of gilt-edged securities? Ought we not therefore to allow trustees to insure against these risks by investing at least part of their funds in the debenture or preference stock of the very well managed industrial securities which are available?

I share the concern indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend in the first part of his supplementary question, but this subject of trustee securities is dealt with in the Report of the Nathan Committee, and I think it would be premature to make any announcement or reach any decision apart from the rest of the recommendations of that committee.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is particularly helpful or public-spirited of his hon. and gallant Friend to seek, for any reason, to undermine public confidence?

Is the Minister aware that, over the last 20 years or so, those trustees who, under their own trust instruments, have had these wider powers of investment, have on the whole done better through this power of investing in industrial securities than they would have done by being confined to gilt-edged loans?

I certainly think that wise trustees have done so.

Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind the fund on which the National Liberal Party is supposed to be living, namely, the Lloyd George Fund on the sale of party honours? Does not that come into it?

I think that question is some little distance away from the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to make it financially possible for people, other than those officially sponsored, to visit the United States of America.

I can do no more than refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 21st October.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of increasing two-way traffic between this country and America? Has he nothing more helpful to offer than he has told the House?

I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend is personally extremely interested and is anxious to increase the dollar tourist allowance as soon as he feels justified in doing so, in the light of all the other demands upon our dollar reserves.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that the workers in my constituency who want to take their holidays in Florida are awaiting this announcement with an impatience that is almost unrestrained?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated expenditure per person per week in the United Kingdom on drink, tobacco, amusement and gambling, respectively.

It is estimated that in the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, the average amounts spent per person per week in the United Kingdom on drink, tobacco, amusements and gambling were 6s. 6d., 6s. 5d., ls. 5d. and 6d., respectively. The figure for gambling is a very rough estimate and relates to net expenditure, i.e., amounts staked less winnings.

Are those figures calculated on the whole population, including children, or only on adults?

The Question asked for a calculation per person, and I take "person" to mean "individual."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the number of issues of all kinds which have recently been made, he will abolish the Capital Issues Committee or restate the principles on which it acts.

The policy of controlling capital issues is under continuous review, and my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

Does not the Economic Secretary agree that the proportion of applications which have been rejected falls steadily? Surely the time has now come when this Committee might be reconsidered?

I agree that the proportion of rejections is small, but we must not forget that a number of applications are never forwarded because the applicants know that they have no chance of success. I assure the hon. Gentleman again that this matter is under constant review.

Does not the continuance of the Capital Issues Committee, though doubtless conducive to the perpetuation of full employment, constitute a reflection on the sincerity of the furious Tory propaganda at the last General Election against Socialist controls?

Its continuation shows how wisely we move forward in all the things we do.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the inequity to certain local authorities owning crematoria following the failure of the Board of Inland Revenue to proceed with an agreed test case due to their error and the consequent withholding of action by the above-mentioned local authorities, he will instruct the Board to defer their new proposals from the financial year 1952 to the financial year 1953.

No, Sir. Even if such a course were desirable, there is no provision in law whereby the proposals made in the rating year 1952–53 could be deferred until the rating year 1953–54.

Is my hon. Friend not aware of the very great injustice which is being inflicted on the local authorities to whom my Question refers, entirely as a result of the action of the Board of Inland Revenue in confusing the issues that were involved in an appeal case? Will he look into the matter again and see what can be done to help them?

I cannot agree that there has been injustice to the local authorities concerned. Whatever is ultimately decided will operate from the year 1952–53.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many veterinary officials at Fishguard have had experience in the examination of horses as well as cattle; and what method and period of testing and examination for disease is used on horses and donkeys imported through this port from Ireland.

One full-time veterinary officer is employed by my Department on the examination of animals landed at Fishguard; when necessary he is assisted by two local veterinary surgeons. All three are experienced in the examination of horses. Horses and donkeys imported from Ireland are individually inspected in daylight, while standing and moving, to determine whether they are in a fit condition to travel.

In view of the widespread public alarm about the kind of horse traffic coming through Fishguard, will the right hon. Gentleman try to employ a specially qualified veterinary inspector—one experienced in horses—at this port, which is the worst one of the lot?

All three veterinary inspectors there, the one full-time and the other two part-time, are experienced in horses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what request has been made by his veterinary officials to the British Transport Commission authorities at Fishguard regarding the withdrawal of facilities for surprise visits by investigators of the Horses and Ponies Protection Association to the lairage at this port.

None, Sir. I understand that there is an arrangement at Fishguard for an investigator of the Association to be admitted to the landing place and given reasonable facilities to examine horses, provided the identity of the caller is disclosed at the main entrance.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not in any way bar surprise visits to any of these ports where there has been all this trouble, so that this trade can continually be checked?

Our wish is that an investigator shall have access in all reasonable conditions, but I think it is reasonable to insist that a caller should come through the main entrance and should announce his or her business.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the total income paid by way of rental by farmers farming the requisitioned land at Peacehaven and Saltdean to the East Sussex Agricultural Executive Committee or to his Department since 1939; and what is the average rent per acre now being paid.

The total income received from licensees farming requisitioned land at Peacehaven and Saltdean since 1939 is £9,785. The average rent now being received per acre is £2 5s.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that only about half that amount of money has been handed over to the property owners? Does he consider that to be really satisfactory, and is he in a position to make a statement on his views on this matter he promised some time ago?

The amount of money that can be handed over to the property owners for requisitioned properties is statutorily fixed, and I have no room for manoeuvre there. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope to make a statement on this matter within the fairly near future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that wheat from the recent harvest is being sold in East Anglia at £21 per ton compared with the average guaranteed price of £30 15s. per ton; if he is aware that this disparity discourages farmers from holding on to good grain in the hope of better prices; and if he has made an estimate in the light of these figures of the approximate cost to the taxpayer of grain subsidies on the 1954 harvest.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," but I do not accept the suggestion in the second part. The standard price for wheat is varied according to a seasonal scale which gives farmers an incentive to hold on to their wheat. The cost of the subsidy payments on home-grown grains of the 1954 harvest to the end of the current financial year was estimated at £61 million in the revised estimate of the Ministry of Food presented on 31st March (H.C. 135).

Is the Minister aware that many farmers cannot afford to hold on to their grain, and that even good grain is being sold at the figure mentioned in the Question? Does he not think that, since this money does not benefit the consumer, it can only be going to the millers, and that the continuance of this policy will be disastrous to the taxpayer, to the farmer and to the agricultural industry as a whole?

In the light of experience so far, I see no justification for reviewing the present arrangements.

Is it not true that at the present moment all the bargaining power is in the hands of the millers?

I do not think that is so, because the millers have to compete with imported flour.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the present situation concerning the disposal of home-produced pigs.

I understand that the number of pigs offered to bacon factories for curing has declined considerably but is still somewhat in excess of what the factories can take. The number sold for pork has also fallen now that the accumulation of pigs has been cleared; and there has been a distinct improvement in the prices realised at the auction markets.

Is it not the case that no long-term solution can be provided for this pig situation apart from more new bacon factories, and that the alternative is many fewer pigs?

I think that the long-term solution is really to be found in a continuing improvement in the quality of pigs and a continuing reduction in the costs of production.

But is it not perfectly true that, no matter how high the quality of the pigs may be, there will always be production surplus to requirements so long as the factory accommodation is not there?

I should think that the curers would be ready to review their curing facilities in the light of progress in the two directions which I have already indicated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates he will be in a position to make a complete statement of Government long-term policy with regard to pig production in this country so that pig breeders will know whether it is the policy of the Government that they should continue to increase home production and to incur capital expenditure on the introduction of modern scientific methods into their arrangements for pig production.

The Government's policy has already been stated. The White Paper issued after the Annual Review last March said that a primary objective of general policy must now be to secure a more rapid improvement in economic efficiency. It stated also that further expansion of pig production must now depend on improvement of quality and substantial reduction in costs. The steady improvement of efficiency through the use of modern scientific methods is essential for the achievement of these aims.

Is the Minister aware that at the moment farmers are being discouraged by the great difference between the retail price and the market price, and will he continue to pursue his present policy of encouraging more pig production at home, because that it the one thing we can produce without requiring the wide open spaces as, for example, in the production of wheat?

I think that we have made it clear that the Government's view is that the higher the level of production at home the better, provided that that production is accompanied by the greatest possible efficiency.

While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that we should have the highest quality of pigs, does he not agree—no matter how high the quality—that unless the bacon factories are capable of absorbing the pigs, there will always be a surplus to requirements? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the factories will not extend their accommodation, the Ministry itself might consider doing so?

I think that is a hypothesis, and that such a hypothetical situation is not likely to be reached.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement on the proposed scheme for the marketing of poultry and eggs.

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 28th October last to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams).

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases have been reported of rabbits with antibodies to myxomatosis in their blood; and what evidence exists to show whether this immunity from the disease is hereditary.

Up to date, only 15 wild rabbits with antibodies to myxomatosis in their blood have been found in England and Wales. There is, as yet, no evidence of hereditary immunity to the disease in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage caused to crops by flooding; and whether he will take action to see that the smaller drainage boards operate efficiently and keep their sluices clear.

I have no jurisdiction in cases where it appears that drainage boards are neglecting their functions under the Land Drainage Act, but river boards have certain powers. If the hon. Member has any particular area in mind where crops have been damaged as a result of neglect by a drainage board and will let me have details, I shall be very ready to look into the matter and, if necessary, bring it to the attention of the river board concerned.

Does not the Minister agree that the solution to this problem lies in the implementation of the recommendations of the Heneage Committee, and can he say when those recommendations are likely to be implemented?

That matter is under consideration by the Government at the present time, but I am not in a position to make a statement at the moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what would be the estimated cost per annum of increasing the agricultural worker's basic wage from £6 to £7 per week, including the extra overtime and piece-work rates.

£30 million would be the cost of £1 per week increase in the remuneration of the numbers at present employed in England and Wales, and there would no doubt also be a substantial increase in the cost of overtime and other supplementary payments.

In view of the smallness of this figure, as compared with the £1,900 million which the nation is spending yearly on drink, tobacco, gambling and amusement, does he not think it reasonable that a little better price should be paid for food towards meeting some such increase?

As I understand that this matter is at present before the National Wages Board, I must limit myself to supplying my hon. Friend with statistical information.

Does the Minister not agree that farm workers are worth £7 a week?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me. He knows the very high opinion I have of farm workers, but I am afraid that, in this case, I cannot be drawn.

asked the Minister of Labour the result of his efforts in connection with the growing redundancy and unemployment in the iron foundry industry in Ayr.

The position in the iron foundry industry in Ayr has remained substantially unchanged since my hon. Friend asked me a Question in May. Only one iron foundry worker is registered as unemployed, but some short time continues to be worked at one foundry, owing to a shortage of orders for marine castings. I will keep a close watch on future developments.

Is the Minister aware-that his sympathetic interest in their problems is giving much comfort to the good and skilled craftsmen in this area?

asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish a White Paper with details of the support given to the dock strike by the Communist Party.

Before I decide what further action, if any, I should take in connection with the recent dock strike, I must give full consideration to the Final Report of the Court of Inquiry which I set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the dispute in the London Docks. This will be available to hon. Members tomorrow morning.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the strike in the ship-repairing industry.

This strike began on 11th September in protest against the dismissal on redundancy of three electricians employed by a federated ship-repairing firm, and in support of a contention that the order of discharge should be on the basis of "last in, first out." It now involves some 8,000 workers. I understand that, following a recent communication from the employers, the unions concerned have asked for a meeting with them.

I appreciate that the Minister cannot do anything further in this situation but, as redundancy is likely to cause a good deal of trouble, would he consider asking such a body as the Committee on Human Relations to inquire into, and report on, the procedure that should be followed between employers and workers when redundancy threatens? In particular, if I get him the set of rules which is adopted in this matter by a very go-ahead, privately-owned firm, would he forward it to the employers in this industry in the hope that they might adopt something of the kind?

If the hon. Member will let me have a copy of the rules to which he refers, I shall consider what I can do.

asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors were appointed as a result of the most recent competition; and of these, how many were graduates in engineering, chemistry or physics, respectively; and how many had more than one year's industrial experience before the appointment was made.

Seven have been appointed so far, and of these one has a degree in physics and more than a year's industrial experience. Three other candidates, one of whom has a degree in chemistry and more than a year's industrial experience, are expected to take up appointment within the next month or two.

In view of the difficulty of obtaining enough suitably trained staff, will the Minister consider the appointment of an independent committee to advise him on the recruiting of personnel to the factory inspectorate?

I am prepared to consider that suggestion. All the time I am doing my best to secure these recruits. There are difficulties, but we are not as short of them as we were.

In order to help the Minister to make up his mind, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment a week tomorrow.