asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what Departments the proposed economies of £100 million will be made.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 24th April to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and Workington (Mr. Peart).

I do not think very much of that Answer. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate idea of how much of this cut is coming from the defence programme and how much from other sources? Is he aware that if only the Chancellor would come down from his lofty plateau, he would be able to cut £200 or £300 million from the defence programme alone?

It was, in fact, a very good reply. That is why I am repeating it this afternoon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly two months

of the financial year have gone, and that if this sum is to be realised as a genuine reduction in national expenditure and not simply the conventional underspending on defence, it is about time that the Chancellor informed the House what he has in mind?

It certainly is to be realised, and my right hon. Friend will choose his own time for announcing it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the date on which the salary of a junior Minister was raised to its present level; and what the present purchasing value of this salary is compared with the date on which it was introduced.

A salary of £1,500 for Parliamentary Secretaries generally was first prescribed by Statute in 1937, though it applied earlier in many cases. In 1946 Parliamentary Secretaries in the House of Commons became entitled to draw in addition half the Parliamentary salary —that is, £500. In terms of purchasing power £1,500 today is equivalent to £560 in 1937, and £2,000 today is equivalent to £1,284 in 1946.

Are not these figures a shocking example of how junior Ministers, like many other Ministers and Parliamentarians, are underpaid? Does the Financial Secretary recall the statement made in the House by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter would be dealt with, and his promise that he would deal with this admitted anomaly? When will that be done and when will the promise be implemented; or is it simply another of the promises that we keep getting from the Government but which they have no intention of carrying out?

If I answer many more questions on this matter, I shall have to declare my interest. I should in any case have difficulty in answering the hon. Member's specific question without anticipating the Answer to Question No. 10.

Is it the case that a number of Members of the party opposite have felt that they had to decline office because of the inadequacy of the pay? If so, is that not a serious consideration which should be taken into account?

I know nothing of all that.

Oh.

On a point of order. The Minister did not attempt to answer my question as to when the Government would implement their promise. Can I have an answer?

I do not think that that necessarily arises.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is spent annually on fundamental scientific research by the University Grants Committee; and the total sum allocated to it each year.

Recurrent grants made to universities on the recommendation of the University Grants Committee are block grants towards their maintenance as centres of advanced education and research. Part is spent on fundamental research, but grants are not normally earmarked for specific purposes, and research expenditure therefore is not separately distinguishable.

The provision for recurrent grant for the quinquennium 1952–57, as announced in February, 1952, rose from £20 million in 1952–53 to £25 million in 1956–57. Since that announcement, additional moneys have been provided for increases in academic salaries and for the expansion of technology.

Does not the Financial Secretary think that we really ought to know a little more about how much is spent upon fundamental scientific research in the universities? Is he aware that there is an estimate that the amount is about £5 million, and that there is a growing feeling that it is inadequate to our needs?

I am anxious not to embark upon a policy of Government earmarking of these sums. It is far better to leave the matter to the discretion of the universities. That is why I am not able to give a precise answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Would it not be worth the country's while if the Financial Secretary asked the universities how much is being spent upon this very important matter? If he thought it was insufficient, would there not be a case for him to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an increase in the total amount?

As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, the arrangements for the next quinquennium will be the right moment to decide what future grants should be.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the £1 depreciated in purchasing power by Is. 6d. during the last year; and what action he proposes to take to restore the pound's purchasing value back to what it was in October, 1951.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the basis of the old cost-of-living scale of 1947 the cost of living has advanced by eight points during the first four months of the year; and whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's proposals for preventing any further increase.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern created by the latest official announcement that the cost-of-living index has again risen to a record high level with a two points increase in a month; what consideration has been given to the matter by the Government; and what action is to be taken to halt this upward trend.

First, I must correct an error in the first part of Question No. 6. On the old basis, with June, 1947, equalling 100, the Retail Prices Index rose between December, 1955, and April, 1956, not by eight points but by four points. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Members to the speech made at Newcastle last Friday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Yes, but surely we have been hearing this story for the last five years, and not only last week. Is the Minister aware that every action the Government have taken over the last five years has been responsible for depreciating the purchasing value of the £? If that is the case—and it is the case— should we not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter his policy completely and to go back to what was in operation before, so that we can have a £ which is really worth something?

It certainly is not the case. For example, the rates of Purchase Tax, despite the last Budget statement, are still lower than they were when we took office.

Is not the Minister aware that we are facing a very grave financial crisis, that the Plimsoll line is now beneath the water, and that every measure the Government have taken up to now has been calculated to increase prices? In the circumstances, why do they not resign?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very happy on this side of the House in taking all the necessary steps to put the position right. If he will read the speech of last Friday, he will find that my right hon. Friend did not in any way mitigate the serious features of the present situation.

Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who asked Question No. 5, is asking for the most drastic policy of deflation?

For the statistical enlightenment of the House, will the Economic Secretary say whether the rise of two or three points in the index, with which the Chanccllor of the Exchequer threatened us two days ago, is additional to the rise of three points which we have had already this year, and whether a rise of six points every six months in the cost of living is the Chancellor's definition of a plateau?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

In view of the ominous situation, does the Economic Secretary really thing that the speech at Newcastle, with its exhortations about holding the line, will do the trick? Will not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do something before we drift into disaster, which will mean another round of wage increases and a shooting up of the cost of living?

I do not think that I can add anything to the Newcastle speech, which answered the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. There will be another speech reported this afternoon.

Were not the decisions of the Chancellor to reduce Government expenditure, to tax profits, and to give a fillip to the Savings Movement not all steps in the right direction?

Will the hon. Member state whether it is or is not a fact, as suggested in certain papers, that the rise in the old Index in the first four months of this year is greater than in any comparable period since 1948? Will he not now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) whether a rise of this magnitude fits in with the Chancellor's definition of stability, as stated in his Newcastle speech?

The first part of that question does not arise out of what is on the Order Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will certainly answer it and give the House the facts. I cannot add to what I have said in answer to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the policy of the Government that restraint should be exercised by industry in the payment of increased dividends.

Yes, Sir.

can the Economic Secretary say whether it is the policy of the Government that there should be restraint in dividends? Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Newcastle speech— according to both The Times and the Manchester Guardian reports—said a great deal about wage restraint, he said nothing whatever about dividend restraint.

The fact that Profits Tax on distributed profits has been increased by 7½ per cent., an increase of 33⅓ per cent. over previous rates, is a clear sign of the attitude of the Government to the greater distribution of dividends at the present time.

Why did the Chancellor, in this much advertised and lengthy speech, say nothing about dividend restraint at all, when even the Prime Minister said something about it at Perth? Will the Economic Secretary tell us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer left it out?

My right hon. Friend said a very great deal about the excess of home demand. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we on this side of the House have always said that increased dividends may imply increased consumption. There is no change here.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when advice of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is heeded it results very often in such a situation of economic falsity in an industry or a company as to constitute a standing invitation to Mr. Clore to come in and put it right?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to raise the maximum limit of £500 on life assurance benefits imposed on friendly societies.

No Sir, I am not satisfied that there is a case for raising this limit.

Would not such an increase to encourage savings be entirely consonant with the policy of the Chancellor in his Budget statement?

I explained during the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill this Session why the Government were not proposing any increase in tax exemption on friendly societies or any withdrawal of their existing facilities. So far as I can remember, in the rest of the passage of the Bill, no hon. Member on either side pursued the point further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government's appeal for restraint in wage and salary claims applies equally to those with incomes at all levels.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that last Friday at West Hartlepool the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that the strongest possible support would be given by the Government to arrest any wage increases unless they were coupled with increased productivity, and that at the same time the Chancellor would do his best to increase the incentives of those who earned salaries in what is called the Surtax range? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the policy of the Government that there should be a wage freeze for one section of the community and increased incentives for another?

I really cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's next Budget statement next year. I should have thought that a surplus of £460 million would be austere enough for anyone.

Can the hon. Gentleman at least tell us whether junior Ministers come into that part of the community which is to have a freeze or in the part which is to have incentives?

It would be indelicate for me to answer that question.

Has not the Government repeatedly made it clear that we must have restraint all round, and is it not very unfortunate that hon. Members opposite should try to make these continual party points?

In view of the very grave position devcloping in sterling this week, will the hon. Gentleman say why he is so confident that the Chancellor's next Budget statement will not be until next year? Secondly, will he say why it is that the Chancellor, in the muchvaunted Newcastle speech to which the hon. Gentleman has referred so often this afternoon, has given the impression to the country that the Government have shuffled off all responsibility for any of these questions, and are putting the matter into the hands of the unions, and indeed only one side of industry?

That is certainly not the impression that the country got from my right hon. Friend's Newcastle speech, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what recent steps he has taken to obtain agreement for the use of modern cleaning devices in Government offices.

The cleaning of Government offices is in fact the responsibility of the individual Departments; but the Treasury is keen to promote maximum efficiency. In 1954 and in 1955 the Treasury asked Departments to consider with their Staff Sides various methods of achieving this, including greater use of modern cleaning apparatus.

Can my right hon. Friend say what answer the Treasury got to the appeal which it made to the Departments?

Well, we received various answers from various quarters. If our 1954 appeal had been wholly successful it might not have been necessary to repeat it so soon.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury why overseas buyers are charged Purchase Tax on their own order forms, printed and purchased in their own countries, and used for the sole purpose of placing their own orders with British exporters.

Under the law these order books are liable to Purchase Tax as stationery, whether they are made here or imported. It would be quite wrong to make arbitrary exceptions in particular cases of this kind.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it really is a lunacy that a man is allowed to bring a form into the country in his pocket and nobody says a word, but that if it happens to come in a day or two later in an envelope he is forced to pay Purchase Tax on it? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these are just the kind of legal lunacies which, as I have informed my right hon. Friend, persuade buyers to go to the Continent, where they are not subject to this kind of nonsense?

This Question arises out of an unusual case about which my hon Friend and I have been in correspondence. My hon. Friend either wishes the tax law to be made so complicated as to provide for every conceivable situation, or else he wishes Customs officers to he given discretion to disregard the law when they think that imported items of cargo should be admitted free. The first

proposal would be impossible, and I suggest that the second would be thoroughly undesirable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he has offered to Mr. Davidson, High Trees, Swanbridge, Glamorgan, for the treatment he has received from the county agricultural committee; and whether he will make a statement.

I can see no justification for the payment of compensation to Mr. Davidson since I am satisfied that he received full and fair consideration in his treatment by the Glamorgan Agricultural Executive Committee.

In view of the fact that this matter has been raised both by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in whose constituency this man lives, and by myself, and in view of the wide public interest in the man's serious allegation of unjust treatment, will the Minister, if he will not make an allowance to Mr. Davidson, at least hold a public inquiry in order that the good name of his Department may be cleared? It is quite wrong to leave matters as they are.

Personally, after going through the case, I am entirely convinced that there is no substance in Mr. Davidson's allegations. But I am anxious that the hon. Member should be as convinced of that as I am, and if it would help him I should be delighted to have a talk with him about the case, and go through it with him in detail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Davidson alleges that incorrect information and documents have been placed before my right hon. Friend by certain officials? Is he further aware that Mr. Davidson is quite convinced that documents upon which Mr. Davidson's signature has been forged have, in fact, been put before my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, and will he consider that?

I have considered all the allegations made by Mr. Davidson that are known to me, with the result that I have announced. I will look again into the case in the light of what my hon. Friend has just said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the new White Fish Subsidy Scheme, due to operate from 1st August.

Discussions are taking place with the representatives of the trawler owners and with the White Fish Authority with a view to a new White Fish Subsidy Scheme being laid before the House in July.

Will the Minister bear in mind that since he met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry the price of coal has risen again, and that this will have an important bearing on any subsidy for steam vessels, if we are to keep them at sea?

Yes. I am aware of that fact. That, of course, is one of the matters which I shall be taking into consideration in the review which is now being made.

Can the Minister say whether it is still the policy of the Government to go on with the tapering policy until the subsidy eventually tapers right off?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until this current review has been carried out, when I shall be making a pretty full statement to the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the staff of photographers and photoprinters in the Organisation and Establishment Department of his Department is being increased from twenty-four to thirty-three.

The number has in fact been reduced by eight. The apparent increase shown in the estimates for 1956–57 is due to the inclusion in the photographic and photoprinting table of a number of posts formerly included under a general heading.

But would my right hon. Friend say why he needs this enormous staff?

I am satisfied that this staff is an economy to the Department. Its work covers not only the reproduction of photographs, maps and documents for my technical services—including the National Agricultural Advisory Service—but also a great deal of duplication and printing of forms, statements and pamphlets, which saves a good deal of the expenditure which would be incurred if all that work had to be placed outside. It is the kind of thing that I keep under constant review.

Will the new equipment include cameras with such rapid shutters that instantaneous photographs can be taken of the prices of agricultural food going up?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that, although there are substantial stocks of potatoes in the country which are rapidly becoming unsaleable and importers have sustained losses totalling £4 million, the prices charged to housewives are still abnormally high; and if he will now reintroduce price control.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that there is now no shortage of potatoes but that prices are still too high; and whether he will now institute price-control to protect housewives from profiteering.

Retail prices have fallen considerably in recent weeks, and I can see no justification for Government intervention.

As potatoes are being sold in the market at a 1d. or 2d. a pound, does the Minister think it right that they should still be sold at 5d. in the shop? If he will not agree to price control, will he say what he will do to ensure a reasonable relationship between the prices paid to producers and those paid by consumers? Further, can he say whether he has told his colleagues who are responsible for school canteens, Army canteens and meals in prisons that it is no longer necessary to curtail the consumption of potatoes?

In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can say that, from such information as I have, potatoes are readily available in the shops at present at prices of between 3d. or less and 5d. a pound. depending on quality. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be as indignant now when prices are coming down as he was when they were going up.

Is the Minister aware that while I was doing my shopping this morning in central London it was impossible to find even the poorest quality oldcrop potatoes at less than 4d. a pound? Is he further aware that quite a number of housewives agreed. yet we find that the Chairman of the Importers Standing Commission of the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades has stated to the Press that housewives should be able to buy all the potatoes they need at prices of not more than 3d. a pound? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housewives want to know what action he intends to take?

This is not the first time that I have had to complain that hon. Ladies opposite seem to me to be uncommonly poor shoppers. The information I have is that on 28th May, which is only three days ago, potatoes were available in more than half the shops visited by several people whom I asked to make a tour, at 3d. a pound or less. I really must ask the hon. Lady to devote more attention and skill to this business of shopping.

Is the Minister aware that my experience is precisely the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger)? Could he now state in what shop in St. Pancras, in which district my hon. Friend and I do our shopping, we could get potatoes at the price which he quotes?

What the right hon. Lady says reinforces what I said about right hon. and hon. Ladies opposite. It takes a bachelor like myself to find a real bargain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the "substantial stocks of potatoes" referred to in Question No. 17 are very largely Dutch imported stocks out of cold store which are practically uneatable? If the hon. Lady will be prepared to buy some of those she will be able to get them a great deal cheaper than at 10d. a pound.

>rose—

Order. That is quite enough about potatoes. There is another potato Question to come.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the inadequate and inaccurate nature of the information furnished to him by the Potato Marketing Board regarding potato stocks and the consequences ensuing, he will now strengthen the board by the inclusion of representatives of distributors and consumers.

I do not accept the hon. Member's description of the information provided by the Potato Marketing Board, and I see no reason to pursue his suggestion for appointing additional members to represent particular interests.

If the Minister's information from the Potato Marketing. Board was not inaccurate, why did he create in this House, by his own statements in answer to Questions, an impression of a non-existent shortage? Is it not the case that he did not know what the stocks were? Is not recent potato history proof that we cannot depend on a producers' board to give a completely satisfactory service to consumers?

I have every reason to believe that the information provided to me by the Potato Marketing Board, and which I passed on to the House, was as accurate as it was possible to obtain at that time. The only action that the Government have taken in this matter was to permit imports from last December. When I gave that information, the price of potatoes was 6d. per pound, which indicated the facts of the situation, namely, that there was then a severe shortage. Since that time the high price has called forward additional supplies, and consumer resistance has led to consumption going down, with the result that there are plenty of potatoes available at the moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his mistaken action and failure to take the right action has had the extraordinary result of causing excessive prices to the consumer and serious losses to the trader? Will he institute an immediate inquiry to ensure that we do not have a repetition of this stupidity next year?

I am perfectly satisfied that what has happened has brought prices down more quickly than any other action would have done. While saying that, I am sorry for the traders concerned who, through misjudging the commercial situation, have incurred losses. It emphasises that the middleman, in the course of the service which he renders to the consumer, often has to take considerable financial risks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no more certain method of ensuring another potato shortage next year than by following the Opposition's advice and introducing price control this year?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the total award in the recent Price Review was agreed by the three United Kingdom farmers' unions.

The statement on the Price Review which I made to the House on 15th March contained the phrase.

"in the prevailing circumstances they"

—that is the farmers' unions—

"would not have wished to dissent from the total increase in the guarantees..."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 563.]

but went on to make it clear that they felt unable to agree to the price determinations or to the changes to be made in the fatstock guarantee system. This statement was agreed verbatim with the leader of the representatives of the three farmers' unions.

Sir James Turner has told me that he did not and does not dispute the explanation which I gave to the House on 30th April that, in order to secure the Government's acceptance of the farmers' unions' schedule of price changes, they would, in all the circumstances, have been prepared

to accept a total increase in the guarantees of £25¼ million, and that any statements issued recently by the unions do not call my explanation of 30th April in question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the representatives of the National Farmers' Union are stating publicly that the total award is not agreed? Is it a fact that during the discussions the farmers' unions issued a schedule of prices totalling £25¼ million which they said they were prepared to accept, and will my right hon. Friend consider perhaps issuing an agreed communique after the next Price Review in order to avoid unhappy situations of this sort?

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree from what I have said that it is clear that the farmers' unions put forward price changes which would have made a total of £25¼ million acceptable to them. They were understandably not prepared to agree to a global figure in isolation from a schedule of prices changes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Price Review result had been announced five weeks earlier, the hon. Gentleman who has put this Question would not be here?

Not for the first time, I must beg to differ from the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which he has just made will come as a profound shock to farmers all over the country? is he further aware that the National Farmers' Union has denied that it agreed to the total award? Therefore, is there not some misunderstanding somewhere, and could my right hon. Friend make a statement over the radio so that all farmers know what they do not know already, which is the truth?

These matters are complicated, and it is very easy for misunderstandings over the interpretation of words to arise through no one's fault, but I am quite sure that the explanation that I have given today will ensure that there is no further misunderstanding about what happened at this Annual Price Review.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the shortage of labour in the South-Western Region of our railways, particularly among signalmen and firemen; and if he will take steps to raise the calling-up age in this service by one year in order to ease the employment situation.

I am aware that labour is short in these grades, and I am watching the position in the light of representations I have received from both sides of the industry on the subject.

Is the Minister aware that quite recently action was taken against the British Transport Commission for employing young men on night work because other labour was not available? If the age is increased to 19 years for call-up, will it not help the position, although I agree that it will not remove the difficulty entirely? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising the age to 19?

The first point formed the basis of some of the representations which I have received from the National Union of Railwaymen and the British Transport Commission, and to which I have not yet replied. I am aware of that particular difficulty, and also that it occurred in the hon. Gentleman's area, but, amongst other things, it probably needs legislation to put it right.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make available for inspection the file copies of all posters and leaflets and other public literature, issued by his Department prior to the late war, in connection with training at Government vocational training centres.

Specimen copies of certain of the posters and leaflets issued before the last war by my Department in connection with training at Government training centres are still in existence, and I will make arrangements for my hon. Friend to see them if he wishes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and I hope that this will serve to clear up the differences of opinion on this propaganda, in which the good faith of his Department is involved.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain industrial workers will be required to follow their own occupation in the event of a national emergency; that National Service training is, therefore, of no advantage to them, or to the nation; and if, in order to save the cost of training such men under the National Service and obtain the benefit of two years of productivity in industries which are short of labour, he will introduce legislation to exempt them from the National Service scheme.

I would remind the hon. Member that the main purpose of National Service today is to enable the Forces to meet current commitments and no longer primarily to build up a reserve of trained men who would be available in war. I could not, therefore, accept a suggestion based on these grounds.

Is it not a terrible economic waste and a folly to take men from their jobs and train them for a task that they will never be called upon to perform? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a first step to doing away with conscription, deal with the industries in which the men will be called upon to remain instead of going into the Army?

I dealt with that very point in my reply to the main Question. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to paragraph 3 of the White Paper on National Service published last October, he will find these words:

"It is no longer primarily a question of training men who would be available in war."

Therefore, the premises on which the hon. Gentleman bases his Question are unsound.

To which war is the Minister referring? Does he not know that a cut in National Service is long overdue?

asked the Minister of Labour the percentage rise in the cost of living since June, 1954.

As measured by the Retail Prices Index, the average level of retail prices rose by nearly 11 per cent. between June, 1954, and April, 1956.

Could the Minister give some explanation why this rise has taken place? In view of the fact that we have had promises over the last six years that the Government were going to reduce the cost of living and bring down this Index, can he explain further why some positive action has not been taken? We have had two Chancellors of the Exchequer, both of them saying they were going to deal with this problem, and both of them have made it worse. May we ask the Minister of Labour whether he will do something about it?

That is a very easy subject to deal with. The hon. Member is, of course, leaving out the rest of the story, the major part of which is that as against 11 per cent., taking exactly the same months, there has been a nearly 15 per cent. increase in wage rates.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the cost of living index rose 11 per cent. in the last single year of Labour rule? Is it not equally true that since that time the wages index has risen far more than the cost of living?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the cost-of-living figures which he gave are much too favourable to the Labour Government. The Index rose substantially more than that.

Coming to more modern history, did the Minister, when he worked out these figures, take into account the potatoes that nobody can find at the price the Minister of Agriculture alone can find them?

I thought we had got off potatoes.

asked the Minister of Labour by how many points the cost-ofliving index has increased this year up to the latest convenient date; and how this compares with similar periods in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955.

Taking the level of prices in June, 1947 as 100, the Retail Prices Index rose by five points between January and April of this year. In the corresponding periods in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955 the numbers of points by which the Index rose were three, three, two and one, respectively.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really not ashamed to make a declaration that in 1956 the cost of living has gone up during that period faster than it has since 1951, when promises were given to stabilise prices and bring them down? In view of the fact that world prices have been reduced or at least stabilised, what has gone wrong? Were those promises made only to win the Election? How can the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Labour, expect to get tranquillity in industry?

Order. This is becoming a debate.

On a point of order. I wonder if you could give some guidance, Mr. Speaker. I understood that one could not have Questions put on the Order Paper if in fact the information was available in normal Government publications. This information is all included in a publication which is available in every single room in the Library. Why do hon. Members put these sort of Questions down?

It is true that Questions Are inadmissible if the information which they ask for is readily available; but sometimes a Question is put in such a way that the precise figure asked for does not appear in the publications. I would not be prepared to say whether that is the case here, but I will look into it.

Further to that point of order. For the education of the hon. Member, would he take note that the Question says, "up to the latest convenient date "? That means for this month, the figures for which are known by the Minister but not yet published.

That may be the explanation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a prisoner named Beck, at present in Walton Prison, Liverpool, wrote a letter complaining of ill-treatment in the prison, to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool; that this letter has not reached the hon. Member; what has happened to it; where it is now; and if he will take steps to have the letter delivered.

There is no prisoner named Beck at Her Majesty's Prison, Liverpool. There is a prisoner Back, but he has not applied for a letter to write to a Member of Parliament.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the man whose name is the nearest approach to the name in my Question on the Order Paper has had a pretty tough time arising from my Question'? Is he further aware that I have learned it is very wrong to put the name of the person on the Order Paper, particularly when he is confined in one of Her Majesty's prisons? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that I do know that a letter was written to me by a prisoner in Walton Prison, which has never been delivered, and I want to know what has happened to it?

The Back petition is under consideration; but it makes no mention of any attempt to stop him sending a letter to a Member of Parliament.

I did not make any accusation of that sort of all in my Question. Really, the authorities have no right to approach Back at all. Why did they approach Back when they found there was not a Beck in the place? Is it the situation that anybody whose name approaches anything like this man's name is to be interrogated in the way in which prisoners are interrogated at Walton Prison?

The hon. Lady put down a Question giving a name which was not on the register of the prison. The only thing which could be done was to find a prisoner with the nearest name, to whom she was most likely to be referring.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on 25th April eight or ten prisoners at present in Walton Prison, Liverpool, all men of good prison record, desired to present a petition to him protesting against the ill-treatment of prisoners in H.1 Block at the prison; that each of the petitioners was interviewed separately and threatened with disciplinary action; whether the petition has reached his Department or where it now is; and if he will have an inquiry made immediately.

On 30th April the Governor of Liverpool Prison sent to the Home Office nine petitions from prisoners who complained of shouts and noises in the punishment cells which were, they suggested, caused by prisoners being ill-treated by officers. In accordance with standing instructions, the Governor warned each prisoner who applied for a petition that any allegations made against prison officers would be fully investigated and if they were shown to be unfounded he might be reported to the Visiting Committee for the offence of making a false and malicious charge against an officer.

These petitions have now been considered, but my right hon. and gallant Friend has deferred a reply until he has had time to consider further material which the hon. Member has since sent to him.

Is the Joint UnderSecretary aware that these petitions came to him following comments made with reference to allegations at the prison? Does he understand that I am very anxious indeed that there should be a complete inquiry into this matter, but that the position has been that prisoners have been unable to find any way of making representations about the terrible screams and noises which go on in the punishment block, not only on one day but on various days during the week? Is he aware also that I have sent to him, from prisoners who have been released from prison, letters saying that they are prepared to make public statements about what is going on in Walton Prison, and does he not consider that it is in the interests of the public, of the prisoners and of the warders that a complete and full public inquiry should be made into these allegations?

In answer to the first allegations which the hon. Lady sent to my right hon. and gallant Friend, he sent her a very long letter, which she will have received. She then sent further evidence, and it is that evidence which my right hon. and gallant Friend is now examining. He does not wish to make a statement until it has been thoroughly investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that because no legitimate methods were available for complaints regarding ill-treatment of prisoners at Walton Prison, Liverpool, to be made, a letter was smuggled from the prison and delivered by hand to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool; that the state of affairs at this prison indicates that an immediate inquiry is necessary; and if he will have an inquiry made at once.

My right hon. and gallant Friend naturally accepts the word of the hon. Member that a letter was smuggled out to her, but he does not accept that this was done because there are no legitimate methods of complaint. All prisoners may make complaints to the Governor, to the Visiting Committee, or to a visiting commissioner or assistant commissioner. They may petition the Secretary of State, and, subject to conditions of which the House is aware, they may write to a Member of Parliament. My right hon. and gallant Friend has considered certain petitions from prisoners in Liverpool Prison, but he is deferring his reply until he has considered further material supplied to him since by the hon. Member.

Is the Joint UnderSecretary aware that I offered the Home Office the opportunity of seeing the letter which was smuggled out, which I have in my hand, but that I have now withdrawn that offer in view of what happened to Beck? Is he aware that the prison authorities may be able to trace the handwriting, and that I am not prepared to take the responsibility for what might happen to a prisoner in Walton Prison if the handwriting of this letter given to me is able to be traced? Is he further aware that unless something is done about this matter, there will be some very grave happenings inside Walton Prison at Liverpool? Is he further aware that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has received these communications, and that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has had a letter from Walton Prison in similar terms? Will he see something is done about it immediately?

I hope that what I have already said has indicated to the hon. Lady, and to the House, that my right hon. and gallant Friend is as concerned as she is by the allegations, that he is taking note of the letters which she has sent, and that when he has completed the investigation, he will make a statement.

On a point of order. May I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that on occasions like this, when serious allegations are put on the Order Paper in the form of Questions, it might be more appropriate if the Secretary of State himself appeared at the Despatch Box to answer those Questions, without disrespect—

There is no point of order for me in that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a decision given in the Queen's Bench Division, that kippers may be sold on Sunday on the ground that they may conceivably he eaten in the raw state and, on this ground, come within the category of meals and refreshments; and, in view of this and other anomalies, whether he will now undertake to introduce legislation at an early date to amend and consolidate the Shops Acts.

My right hon. and gallant Friend has studied a report of the case. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10th May to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Has the hon. Gentleman ever eaten a raw kipper? Does he know anyone who has done so? If not, is not the present position a stupid state of affairs? Could not something be done to bring the law into a proper state?

My right hon. and gallant Friend agrees that the law on the closing hours of shops does stand in need of amendment; it is simply a question of finding Parliamentary time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a number of Cypriots including two priests were interrogated by officers of the Metropolitan Police on 9th and 10th May; if he is aware that premises were searched and documents removed without a search warrant being produced; and what steps he proposes to take.

A number of Cypriots were interviewed by police officers in the course of inquiries on 9th and 10th May. My right hon. and gallant Friend is informed that such searching as took place was done with the consent of the persons interviewed, and in one case some documents were taken away for examination with the approval of the owner. No action on my right hon. and gallant Friend's part is called for.

Whilst acknowledging that the police behaved quite courteously in these interrogations, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to say what necessity justified the interrogation of British subjects who have lived in this country for twenty years and never come into conflict with the law, and who were asked such questions as how many firearms they possessed?

I cannot give the reasons for action taken by the police in the execution of their duty. As the hon. Member has conceded, the police acted properly in the performance of their duty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instruction or advice he has given to local authorities as to the provision of special reception centres for the detention of children under the age of 12 years who are remanded in custody under Section 3 of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act, 1952.

Local authorities were asked in September, 1952, to make reception centres, as these were provided, available as special reception centres. In view of the decreasing demand for these facilities my right hon. and gallant Friend would not feel justified in recommending further action to local authorities at present.

Does not the Joint Under-Secretary realise how undesirable it is that children under 12 who get into trouble through lack of parental control should be housed with young toughs, whom they inevitably regard as heroes and tend to copy? Could he not do something to get this anomaly dealt with?

The use of special reception centres has not been extensive, and they do use staff which in our view could be better used elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children and young persons were detained in remand homes at the nearest convenient date; and how many of these were under 12 years of age.

During the last six months of 1955, the average daily number of children and young persons detained in local authority remand homes was 630. I regret that information about the number under the age of 12 is not available.

Ought not that number to be available? Does the hon. Gentleman know that I happen to be chairman of a remand home under the direction of the Home Office and that in the home about a quarter to a third of the inmates are children under 12? Is not this an important matter which ought to have constant control and supervision?

I think it is under constant control and supervision, but most of these remand homes, as the hon. Member knows, are very small. They are small units with twenty, or not many more than twenty, children in them. Often it is not practicable to provide separate acommodation for the younger children. Care is,of course, taken about the segregation of the older children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of road accidents involving transport vehicles, he will take steps to bring to the notice of the police the advisability of verifying the number of hours the driver was driving during the day of the accident, with a view to preventing further accidents, where these can be avoided, by restricting driving hours to those permitted by law.

It is the normal practice of the police to make such inquiries when investigating accidents involving transport vehicles.

Is the Home Secretary prepared to see that figures are published stating how many accidents are due to this type of over-driving? The trade union movement has been complaining recently about drivers sleeping whilst driving on the roads and causing great danger to drivers of other vehicles.

What is usually done when police get particulars of such cases is that those particulars are referred to the licensing authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken by the Thames river police concerning the motor vessel "Royal Princess" which went adrift from Cadogan Pier on the night of 25th May.

The Thames River police kept the motor vessel "Royal Princess" under casual observation on the evening of 24th May. No further police action was necessary.

Is the Minister aware that this was one of the incidents of hooliganism which are becoming increasingly characteristic of the silly young men and women of London society, and that if a working-class football supporters' club hired a steamer and behaved in that way they would find themselves in the cells?

Without accepting the premise in the second part of the supplementary question, all I can say is that there were no incidents on that occasion which called for police action.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the incidents included the throwing of two Guards officers into the Thames, throwing chairs and bottles of champagne after them, and the use of fire hoses?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place for breach of the peace in the Mayfair area of London during the present year.

I have assumed the hon. Member's Question to refer to prosecutions for assault or for using insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. So far this year six persons have been prosecuted by the police for one or other of these offences in the Mayfair area. In one case the charge was dismissed.

Is the Minister aware that on the night of 25th May some Guards officers and their girl friends performed dangerous antics on the roof of a building in Curzon Street, and threw glasses of champagne down on passersby? Will he make sure that breaches of the peace are treated by the police as breaches of the peace and not just as cases of youthful high spirits because they happen to occur among the rich and influential?

The best answer that I can give the hon. Member is that the police have no record of any disorder in the streets of Mayfair this year caused by people attending parties.

asked the Minister of Education why he does not regard a graduate degree of the University of Calcutta as equivalent to a degree of an English university for the purpose of determining the status of a teacher.

I understand that neither the length nor the standard of ordinary degree courses at Calcutta University is equivalent to that of Universities in this country. It has, however, been the practice of my Department to accept for graduate status first class honours degrees or higher degrees of Calcutta University.

Is the Minister aware that the University of London does recognise this degree and has accepted for postgraduate studies a constituent of mine who holds the degree of bachelor of arts of the University of Calcutta? Is it not inconsistent for the Ministry to refuse to pay this man as a graduate teacher, and to continue to pay him as a nongraduate teacher, when in fact the University of London accepts him as a postgraduate student?

I am not aware of the practice of London University, but the constituent about whom the hon. Lady wrote to me obtained a pass degree on a two-year course only. I think she will appreciate that, as the bulk of our teachers here have done a two-year course and are not graduates, I can hardly recognise a course of that length as equivalent to the three-year course taken by teachers who have been to an ordinary university here.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers "failed B.A., Calcutta" as good as "failed B.A., London"?

asked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied with the present arrangements under which private persons are able to own or conduct private schools; and if he will consider taking steps to strengthen such arrangements so as to prevent schools being opened by or passing into the hands of people unsuitable to have the care of children and young people.

As my right hon. Friend announced last December, Part III of the Education Act, 1944, will be brought into operation in September, 1957. This will help to achieve the object my hon. Friend has in mind, and, in the meantime, I am satisfied that the current arrangements are the best that can be devised.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent case in which an undischarged bankrupt and ex-convict was convicted of running a private school on a completely fraudulent basis, involving frequent moves of the entire school to avoid creditors? Does not that indicate the desirability of close supervision in the interests of parents and children?

I am aware of that case, and I think that my hon. Friend may be satisfied that the measures to which I have referred will prevent that particular gentleman from being a trouble to the education authorities again and will provide a safeguard in future cases.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look again at the suggested draft Regulations for the registration of private schools? Is it not the case that the draft as at present suggested would not enable his right hon. Friend to get any information as to the moral suitability or unsuitability of persons to practise as teachers?

As the hon. Member has stated, they are draft Regulations, but I will bear in mind what he has said.

asked the Minister of Education what steps are taken to encourage the planting of trees around the playing fields and other grounds of schools which come under his jurisdiction.

This matter is dealt with in two of the Ministry's building bulletins. I am sending my hon. Friend details.

Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encourage the growing of trees, not only for their own sake but also to relieve the austerity of some of the buildings with which this generation has been afflicted?

Yes.