asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what report he can make on the intentions of the Trustees of the British Museum in regard to the acceptance of a legacy under the will of the late George Bernard Shaw.

I am informed by the Trustees of the British Museum that, as residuary legatees, together with the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and the National Gallery of Ireland, they are necessarily defendants to a summons issued by the Public Trustee, as executor of the will of the late George Bernard Shaw, to obtain the court's construction of various clauses in the will, including the determination as to whether the terms relating to the residuary trust funds in connection with the proposed British alphabet are valid and effectual. The matter is sub judice and I can make no statement about the intentions of the Trustees of the British Museum.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of books in the National Library at the British Museum and the number issued to the Reading Room during the last convenient annual period.

The total number of volumes is currently estimated at 5½ million. The number of issues to readers in 1955 was 1,234,401.

In view of the comparatively small number of books actually issued, could the right hon. Gentleman ask the Trustees to reconsider the possibility of storing somewhere outside London a large number of books which are only kept because of the Copyright Act?

That is a matter which is always under their consideration. Still, I think that anybody who reads 1¼ million books in a year has not done badly.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue of 1¼ million books makes his miserable contribution to the National Reference Libary of Science seem even more absurd?

No. The British Museum collection includes books dealing with a large number of subjects over many centuries.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the present security arrangements in the Tate Gallery.

The Trustees of the Tate Gallery are, I am informed, urgently reviewing their security arrangements in the light of the recent theft of a picture from the Gallery.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the occasion of the recent temporary disappearance of a painting from the Tate Gallery, the porter held the door open for the picture to be carried away, and that this was conveniently photographed by a photographer in attendance? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, since its return, the picture has been screwed to the wall of the Gallery? Is it intended that all pictures in the Gallery shall in future be screwed to the wall, or only the thirty-nine pictures in the Lane collection which Her Majesty's Government are evidently so anxious to retain in this country?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct in suggesting that the attendant held the door open. However, if my hon. Friend can give me any further information on that matter I shall be very glad to examine it. As regards screwing pictures to the wall, that has its advantages, which are obvious, and its disadvantages, in that the pictures are less easily removable in the case of fire.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now reopen negotiations with the Government of Eire regarding the future of the pictures in the Lane bequest at the Tate Gallery.

No, Sir. This is not a matter for the Government.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that these pictures should temporarily be on view in Ireland?

As I said in the debate which we had on this matter eighteen months ago, that is a matter for the trustees: they have power to lend. So far as I am aware, no request has recently been rceived from Ireland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be loaned to the Government of Ireland to organise the Irish sweepstake?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be more in accord with British national justice to base the custody of these pictures on ethics rather than on petty legalism?

I am not sure whether I ought to enter into these nice distinctions drawn by a member of the profession; but as to the ownership of these pictures, that was settled by a vote of the House about eighteen months ago.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost to extend the present concession on tobacco to cover the new increases in tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Treasury of increasing the value of old-age pensioners' tobacco vouchers to include the increase in the Tobacco Duty.

The cost would be about £2¼ million in the first full year.

On a point of order. Would you enlighten me, Mr. Speaker, as to why you did not call me when I rose to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 1? Did you not call me because, the case being sub judice, it is not in order to ask questions, or because you did not see me? I rose immediately after the Chancellor sat down.

I hope that I shall not always be called upon to give reasons why I do not call an hon. Member. It would involve me in a great deal of speaking. I watched to see whether the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) wished to ask a supplementary question, and, as he did not, I thought that he took the same view as I did, that the matter was sub judice and that nothing more could be said.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that the margin of comfort of most old-age pensioners is very small indeed, he will reconsider the matter in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and also the possibility of a concession for nonsmokers? In view of his brilliant expounding of the merits of the Budget last night, can he not in this matter be a rather more susceptible Chancellor?

May I also press the Chancellor to reconsider this matter and do something different? Does he realise that this aspect of his Budget proposals is regarded all over the country as about the meanest part of the whole Budget?

Both hon. Members have different methods of approach, but no doubt all these matters will be discussed during the course of our consideration of the Finance Bill.

Will the Chancellor at least say that he still has an open mind on this problem?

I have made my statement on the Budget, but this matter will no doubt come up again.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship caused to old-age pensioners in respect of tobacco coupons when delay occurs in issuing pension books, since it is laid down that these coupons cannot be granted unless the pension book is produced; and whether he will issue a document or certificate to such people asserting that they are genuine pensioners.

I am aware of the position, but I fear it would not be practicable to make the change suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the new basis adopted by the Inland Revenue and accepted by the Public Trustee for the valuation of the copyright of the late George Bernard Shaw's estate; how it differed from the basis hitherto adopted by the Inland Revenue; and why it differed;

(2) what total annual income, before tax, what rate of interest and what rate of change in receipts from copyright need to be assumed over three and seven years and the life of the copyright to provide for a valuation of £500,000 under the new basis of valuation.

The only basis of valuation of copyrights for Estate Duty purposes is the statutory one, namely, the price which they would have fetched if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased. There is not, and never has been, any standard formula or rule for applying this basis to particular cases. Valuation is made in each case by reference to its own facts in the light of expert opinion obtained. No question of old or new bases of valuation therefore arises.

Could my right hon. Friend then give an assurance that in the case of other authors who produce copyright and die, there will be no change whatever in the basis of valuation and that, therefore, taking say A. A. Milne and Bernard Shaw in comparison, there is no likelihood of any increase in the estates of other authors by reason of the present decision?

Yes, Sir: both my hon. Friend and I have some experience in this matter in another capacity, and I assure him that the method of valuation has always been the same and will continue to be the same.

Approximately how much is it likely to cost the British Museum to contest this case? In the event of winning, how much does it expect to gain as a result of the action?

I could not possibly give those figures.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the expenditure of the Government on research and development is allocated to civilian and defence purposes, respectively.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Table listing Research and Development expenditure which appears as Appendix A to the Financial Secretary's Memorandum on the Estimates, and in particular to the notes to that Table. Of the total expenditure of £235 million, approximately £31 million is far civil and approximately £204 million for defence purposes; but of this defence figure an unidentifiable sum will be spent on research and development which may have a Service or a civil application, or both.

Does the Chancellor not think that it is time we overhauled this ratio between defence and civilian research expenditure? Even if he does not want to decrease the defence research expenditure, does he consider that an expenditure of the nation's effort in the ratio of eight to one in favour of the defence side is really deploying our resources in the best possible way?

Of course, research expenditure in general is not confined to those particular Votes. I underline what I said in my last sentence, that some of this expenditure is common and serves common purposes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds he proposes to make available for the establishment of a National Reference Library of Science and a lending library, in view of the recent Report of the Scientific Advisory Council.

I am making £2,500 available during the current year for the purchase and binding of scientific periodicals as a beginning to the lending library, and £10,350 has been included in the Estimates for the purchase of books and periodicals for the Patent Office Library. This Library will eventually form the basis for the Reference Library. As regards capital expenditure for building, I am unable to add anything to the Answer given on 1st November by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works.

Does the Chancellor realise that we are completely frittering away our opportunities in this direction, and that if he incurred this small amount of expenditure on scientific development the rewards would be out of all proportion to the sum that we are asking him to put into it? If he can spare a few minutes from his lotteries, will he please look at this matter afresh?

I assure the hon. Member that I am not allergic to expenditure on books.

Whilst acknowledging that the right hon. Gentleman has faithfully declared his interest, may I ask whether he is not aware that what is needed is a new building in which to house the books, together with staff to see that the books are lent? Is the Chancellor interested in all that too? If not, he ought to be.

Having declared my interest, I think that any further questions could be asked of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the National Sunday School Union's letter protesting against the Premium Bond scheme.

I shall draw attention to the statement that I made in the course of yesterday's debate on the Budget proposals.

In view of the fact that that statement merely affirms that a lottery is not a lottery, may I ask whether the Chancellor is aware that he is giving deep offence to workers in the Sunday school movement? Is he further aware that the letter which he has received in such strong terms is supported by a very strong feeling on the part of people who are active in the Sunday school movement?

As I said yesterday, I have the deepest respect for sincerely held views on this matter. I am, however encouraged by the position taken by the Chairman of the National Savings movement, who holds a position of equal respect both in the Savings movement and in the religious life of the country.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pending the repayment of post-war credits, he is prepared to provide a scheme of prizes in which holders of post-war credits can participate on the lines of the proposal for Premium Bonds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will convert all outstanding post-war credits into Premium Bonds.

The answer is "No, Sir."

Since these unfortunate people have been denied interest on their now more than ten years' old loan to the Government, will the Chancellor not consider extending his bookmaking activities so that these people may get at least a run for their money, which is losing value all the time that this Government are stumbling on in power?

Why will the Chancellor not consider this suggestion? Will he not give some measure of belated justice to these people to give them the opportunity of sharing in this lottery, if he himself really believes in it? If our suggestion was adopted, would he not have a large sum available to begin with for distribution as prizes?

No, Sir. The two questions are quite different and are not related.

Why does the Chancellor weary of well doing? If he is so enthusiastic about gambling, why not press on with this ingenious suggestion?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked a question more for the sake of making his point than for asking me for an answer.

Whether the Chancellor is enthusiastic about gambling or not, does he not realise that a great many people feel that post-war credits, which were taken from them for one purpose during the war, have subsequently been filched by the Government and not returned to them, and that a great many people consider that they should be treated much more fairly?

That is a quite different question, which both Governments have had to face, and has nothing to do with the question of Premium Bonds.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek a winning ticket in the Adjournment lottery.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government plan to cut Government spending by £100 million makes allowance for increases in current cost of maintaining British forces in Germany.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the proposal to save £100 million on the Estimates, allows for the recovery from the German Government of some or all of the costs of maintaining British forces in Germany.

As explained in the Statement on Defence, 1956, the current Estimates, to which the new economy drive relates, assume the receipt of £50 million from the Federal German Government. Negotiations with that Government on the payment of support costs after 6th May, 1956, are now in progress and I cannot anticipate their outcome.

Is it not clear that if the Germans stand on the strict letter of the Paris Agreements, at least £50 million of the Chancellor's bonds has gone down the drain already? What will he do about that?

That is a very unwise supplementary question in view of the fact that these negotiations are now proceeding.

In view of the fact that in addition to probably not paying anything towards the cost of our four divisions, the German Government have now decided that all British Service men living in requisitioned property may have to get out by 1st May, would the Chancellor not agree that this will be an added burden?

All these matters are now the subject of negotiation, and I must adhere to my reply that I do not propose to make a statement while these negotiations are in progress.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts, and what percentages of the total Budget they represent, allocated, respectively, in the present Budget to defence, housing, health, National Insurance, and education.

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect on Income Tax assessments of the new valuation of houses for local rating purposes.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement about the valuation of property for Income Tax under Schedule A which was made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 19th April during the debate on my Budget proposals.

Is the Chancellor aware that householders will be gratified at the decision to retain the old valuations for Income Tax purposes; but could he take some steps to extend the same principle to bodies like the Metropolitan Water Board, which are now using the new valuation for collecting rates?

I think that is a different question from the Schedule A matter to which this Question refers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this situation will cause considerable hardship in Scotland, where valuations are being frozen for five years, and that where there have been partial valuations they create a handicap for one citizen as compared with another?

One of the reasons given by my right hon. Friend as to why it was not possible to introduce a new Schedule A system was that it would produce the anomaly of different systems in England and in Scotland.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will give a detailed statement on the proposed £100 million economy measures.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to announce the details of his proposed economy measures; and if he will issue a White Paper.

Decisions involving important changes in policy or administration will be announced as and when they are taken, but I cannot yet say when the first announcement will be made.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so coy and unlike his usual self in this matter? This will obviously involve major changes of policy. Surely he has the courtesy to give the House at least some notice in advance of what he intends to do.

No, I think it is much better to make the announcement when we have made a decision.

In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary hedged when pressed on a matter affected by this Question last week, may I have an assurance from the Chancellor that there will be no cutting down of the technical education programme and that it will not be affected by this economy measure?

When we make decisions we shall announce them to the House.

Since the Leader of the Opposition has given notice that we should like a debate on technical education and a number of other subjects very soon, has the right hon. Gentleman not yet taken the point, made in all sincerity and not in a party sense, that this procedure is making a farce of our Parliamentary proceedings in the debates on the Estimates? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we can debate Estimates which have been published but which, within the next two or three weeks, may be completely destroyed as a result of a Government decision?

I do not think that there will be any difficulty in treating this matter either in a party sense or in all sincerity. All Governments from time to time have made changes in their decisions on expenditure even after the Estimates have been presented. What we propose this year is to do that in an orderly manner and announce our decisions to the House.

Since this decision and announcement has been made in the most disorderly manner, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when was the last occasion that Estimates were introduced at the usual time and then, within three weeks of the beginning of the financial year, an announcement was made by the Government that the Estimates were to be cut by £100 million?

I remember very well an occasion at the beginning of my political life, the first time that a Socialist Government broke down and ran away, under Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what amount was realised by the imposition of the present Purchase Tax on sporting cartridges during the past financial year.

I regret that this information is not available.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what economies in staff have been effected by the Estate

At the end of the war there were serious staff shortages and heavy arrears in the Estate Duty Office, while the work was increasing in complexity and contentiousness owing to rising rates of duty.

The raising of the exemption limits in 1946 and 1954 by themselves gave little relief. The abolition of legacy and succession duties in 1949 gave material savings, which were fully taken into account in arriving at the staff necessary to cope satisfactorily with the work.

As I said in the Budget debate, the total staff showed no material change between 1939 and 1956, although in this period the larger estates and those most difficult to handle doubled in number.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of estates dealt with by the Estate Duty Office in 1938–39 and 1954–55 with probate values between £5,000 and £30,000, between £30,000 and £100,000, between £100,000 and £500,000, and those over £500,000.

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

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, as the revaluation of properties carried out under the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, is of an inflationary character, he will postpone the operation of these new valuations until the present inflationary situation has abated.

I cannot accept either the hon. Member's premise or his suggestion.

Is the Minister aware that shopkeepers and many householders are complaining at the excessive increase in their valuations, and that already they are suggesting that this is another reason why they should ask for wage increases? As this will inevitably push up the cost of living again, are we to take it that it is part of the Government's policy to continue what they have been doing during the last two or three years, namely, to increase the cost of living at the expense of the poorer people?

I always hesitate to enter into economic discussions, but the only practical effect of revaluation is to alter the distribution of the rate burden as between different classes of property owners. To the extent that it reduces the share of one class, it increases the share of the others. The overall effect, therefore, is neither inflationary nor deflationary.

Is not the Minister aware that industry—big industry and the wealthy industrialist who are represented on the benches opposite—is still getting away with it? If the argument is right in respect of small shopkeepers and householders, why does not the right hon. Gentleman do the same in the case of the big businessmen and support a Bill promoted by an hon. Friend of mine which will come before the House on Friday?

I should not like to anticipate the attitude which this side of the House may adopt towards the Bill coming up on Friday.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what reply he has given to the request of the National Chamber of Trade that he should receive a deputation from them in regard to the new revaluation of shops and houses.

I have agreed to receive a deputation at the appropriate time.

Is the appropriate time likely to be within the next few weeks? If, as I hope will be the case, this representative body really tells the right hon. Gentleman the facts of life on this question and can substantiate the claims which it is now making, will he give the House an assurance that he will agree to amend the present position?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a lot of things. I am always interested to hear about the facts of life; we all are. The appropriate time for the deputation will be when the position becomes a little clearer. What the effect of its arguments will be I cannot say until I have heard them.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what car-storing facilities will be contained in the new building to be erected upon the site of the Holborn Restaurant.

I understand that there will be provision for parking seventy cars in the basement.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what car-storage accommodation is to be provided as a result of the new building operations taking place in Bennett Street, between Sir James's Street and Arlington Street.

The planning authority took the view that the site was too confined for it to be practicable to provide any such accommodation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an office building going up in one of the most congested parts of London, and that it is idiotic to erect a building which provides the same facilities as were provided in Queen Victoria's time? Will he do something to ensure that the decision is altered?

This is a matter entirely within the scope of the local planning authority. The matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend would be justified in revoking its decision.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what modifications he has made in the formula generally applied in respect of Exchequer grants to local authorities in regard to coast protection.

None, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to build additional housing accommodation for old people that will include provision for meals and some nursing care.

I am at present looking into the whole question of housing accommodation for old people and shall be making a statement shortly.

While I welcome that announcement by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he will consult the Minister of Health and try to deal with the very sad and tragic cases which arrive in hospital, a situation which would be quite unnecessary if proper provision had been made for them in housing accommodation earlier?

My relations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health are of the closest.

Are the right hon. Gentleman's relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficiently close for this extra accommodation to attract the subsidy which has recently been taken away?

My relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer are intimate and cordial.

Does my right hon. Friend realise how glad I am that he now appears to be moving in the direction of co-operation?

I have come to the conclusion that my best policy is one of co-existence with the hon. Lady.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will observe with some surprise the distinction between his description of his relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his relations with the hon. Lady?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the present average difference in the cost of erecting one or two-roomed bungalows for elderly people and the normal council house; and to what extent flats are being erected providing small flats for elderly couples on the ground floor.

The answer to the first part of the Question is about £400 and £325 respectively. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

As the Minister said in answer to a previous Question that he would make a statement about suitable provision for elderly people, can he say when he is likely to make such a statement, especially having regard to my Question?

I will make my statement as soon as possible. That does not mean that I shall be able to say exactly how many flats on the ground floor have been provided and how many of them have been occupied by elderly people.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the negotiations between the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the London Electricity Board for the introduction of an assisted wiring scheme for the benefit of tenants have broken down; and whether, in the circumstances, he will introduce legislation to meet the hardship suffered by tenants of premises where the electric wiring is defective and the landlord refuses to cure the defect.

It is not clear to me what change in the law the hon. Member has in mind.

Is not the Minister aware that to change the law might do something to remove the very considerable hardship existing at present?

The hon. Member has done no more than repeat his Question again. What I should like to know is in what way he would like the hardship to be alleviated; but as the rules of order do not permit him to give information, he will have to remain silent.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practical hardship is that many tenants cannot pay for better wiring when it is needed? Is there nothing that he can do about it?

The hon. and learned Gentleman still has not indicated what reform he has in mind. Does he suggest that the landlords should pay, that the local authorities should pay, that the Exchequer should pay, or that the Electricity Board should pay?

If I give the Minister a detailed explanation of what I propose, will he look at the matter sympathetically?

I will certainly closely study any suggestions put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the approximate number of houses erected, or in process of erection, in the County of Essex by local authorities outside their boundaries both in respect of the London County Council and otherwise.

Approximately 50,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been a proper allocation of land for the respective authorities? Has he any figures to indicate the proportion of land in Essex acquired for use by the London County Council and other authorities?

I have no figures handy in terms of acreage, but of the total of 50,000 houses, about 48,000 were for accommodation provided by the London County Council and the remainder were divided between West Ham, East Ham and Chingford.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further consideration has been given to the hardship of persons urgently needing relief from overcrowding or living in unsuitable conditions who for various reasons still find themselves unable to be placed on the housing list of any local authority.

I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind. But, if he has any suggestion, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider it sympathetically.

Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he does not know what is in my mind? If so, is he not aware that the matter has been debated in the House more than once? Surely almost every hon. Member knows that there are individuals who cannot get on to any list at all for various reasons. As sympathetic attention was paid to this matter by the Minister's predecessor, will the Minister do the same?

Not only was attention paid to the matter by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, but my right hon. Friend has paid attention to it, and he sent advice on the subject to local authorities a year ago.

If the hon. Gentleman wants a suggestion, I would ask whether it would not help the hard cases if the subsidy on rebuilding to meet overcrowding were restored to the figure from which it was recently reduced.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in London alone there are nearly 50,000 families needing housing accommodation whose cases are regarded as of extreme urgency? Will he help local authorities to get more sites in and around London so that accommodation can be provided, because at the moment very little can be done?

I was not aware that the subject of sites arose on this Question.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further advice he is giving to local authorities in the problem of insanitary caravan sites.

My right hon. Friend is still considering what advice he can usefully give on this problem.

Will the Minister consider the advisability of issuing a circular to local authorities telling them of the need to have official caravan sites? Will he also advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his monetary policy is placing serious difficulties in the way of councils who have already taken official sites? Will he think further on that matter?

The Answer to the first part of the question is that that is what my right hon. Friend is considering. The second part of the question does not arise.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will now extend the scope and nature of the exemptions from National Service in view of the increased needs of industry today for more technicians and other workers; and if he will make a statement on the way in which he plans to deal with these problems.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have been, respectively, called up and deferred, respectively, in England and Scotland, during each of the years 1950 to 1955.

As the Answer includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Has the Minister considered the figures, whatever they are, in relation to our productivity and exports, and if so, with what results?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not seen the figures, but he will be able to greet the unseen with a cheer because they show how much better Scotland does than England in this respect.

No, Sir. I have no power to exempt men from liability to National Service though as the hon. and learned Member is aware arrangements exist for deferment of call-up. So far as these are concerned I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to his Question of 6th March, 1956, to which I have nothing to add.

Has not the Minister been able to review these exemptions in the light of the current conversations with Russian statesmen now in London?

I do not think they have been reviewed particularly in relation to those conversations. This matter is constantly under review by the Government, and a number of exemptions have been made recently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the call-up is having a serious effect upon the railway system in the South-West, where young men are being called upon to work at night although not allowed by law to do so? Will he look into the way in which the call-up affects the railway system?

Of course, the call-up causes difficulty. The Forces today are by no means an unskilled occupation; indeed they never have been. Secondly, the more exemptions we make the further we get away from the principle of universality which is one of the things which make National Service acceptable in this country.

asked the Minister of Labour to give an estimate of the numbers of those science teachers who are now undergoing National Service.

The number of graduates in mathematics and science who have taken a teacher-training course and who are now doing their National Service is about 360.

As it is now the policy of the Government to defer many science teachers, is it not a farce, and unfair, to keep in the Services science teachers who have already been called up? Would it not be better to release those who are now serving the last few months of their National Service?

I do not think there are any science teachers in the ordinary sense of the word in the Forces, because people are called up before they begin teaching. We have made very important exemptions in this field since 1st January, 1956. At present I cannot go beyond that.

Of the numbers who are actually in the Services, how many are in occupations there in which they can use their abilities? Will the Minister keep closely in touch with the Service Departments in order to make use of those abilities?

I do not think that I have the exact figure to cover the hon. Gentleman's question. The number of the exceptional arrangements to which I have referred is this year about one hundred.

asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to make a statement about the Government's policy in relation to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of recent developments in Government policy, he will now move to amend Standing Order No. 16 so as to provide an increased number of allotted days, the increase to be reserved for debates on the nationalised industries.

A statement of the Government's policy in relation to the Special Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be made within the next few weeks. As I informed the House on 8th December, I do not think that to increase the number of allotted Supply days would provide the right answer to this particular problem.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the Government are taking a very long time over a matter upon which the Conservative Party once had very decided views? Does "a few weeks" mean before the summer Recess?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should complain if we take longer to make up our minds, if the final result is likely to be agreeable to him when it emerges. I hope that I shall be able to make a statement before the Whitsun Recess.

As it is now the policy of the Government to finance the nationalised industries directly from the Treasury it makes it all the more necessary that the House of Commons should have some control over these industries. At present we have little or none: some of their reports and activities have not been debated for years. If the suggestion in my Question is not acceptable, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a Standing Committee to watch over them?

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Report of the Select Committee. His point is perfectly fair, and there is great force in it. All I suggest is that we should make known to the House our decision on this Report and then we can debate, if necessary, the conclusions we have come to.

Will the Prime Minister have consultations with the Trades Union Congress before coming to a conclusion on this matter and bringing it to the House?

I am inclined to think that our consultation should be with the House first.

Is not the Trades Union Congress vitally interested, because any change may affect the normal arrangements between the management and the workers of the nationalised industries? Will he consider its views if they are sent to him?

I am not going to do anything rough or revolutionary about this. We want to serve the House in what is a very complicated and difficult matter.