asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Report of the meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, held in Copenhagen from 21st October to 2nd November, 1955, when about seventy papers dealing with fisheries research were under consideration; if he will place a copy of the Report in the Library; and what action he proposes to take upon it.

The International Council has not yet published this Report, a copy of which I shall place in the Library when available. The discussions covered the recent work of member countries in the field of fishery research and greatly assist the programming of future work.

Does the Minister realise that these reports and the work of this Council are of the utmost interest to the fishing industry, and deserve the widest possible publicity, and that not to give it defeats one of the purposes for which the Council was founded?

I hope that the Report will receive the widest possible publicity, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of course, these reports are scientific and very technical, and are not, perhaps, suitable for consumption by the ordinary man in the street. They are, however, of the very greatest value, and I hope they will receive the widest possible circulation in the quarters for which they are intended.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the home production of cheese and butter has increased in the last two years; and what percentage of our total consumption is now met by home production.

Home production of cheese was 29 per cent. less in 1955 than in 1953, a record production year. Creamery butter production was 17 per cent. more in 1955 than in 1953. In 1955, home production of cheese represented 29 per cent. of our total consumption and of creamery butter 5 per cent.

In view of the fact that we in Britain make some of the best cheeses in the world, and that we have milk to spare, will my right hon. Friend look with a fresh mind at the whole question whether Britain cannot make more of her own cheeses herself?

I agree with my hon. Friend that our speciality cheeses are worthy of a still higher level of consumption, and I am very anxious to do every-thing that I can to popularise them. I am glad to say that the consumption of them is going up. My hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that milk is supplied to the cheese manufacturers, as to other manufacturers, at a price considerably lower than the normal full price.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if that low price for milk also applies to the individual farmers who make cheeses?

I think it applies to manufacturers of all cheese which is sold.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate was made of prospective increases in the cost of fuel, power and transport in fixing farm prices at the last Annual Review.

None, Sir. It is not the practice at an Annual Review to provide against possible future increases in costs.

Does that mean that there is no contingency fund, and that, in fact, farmers have to work on a Review which, so long as there is any degree of inflation, must be adverse to their interests?

If there are any future increases which, at the time of the Review, are known or are predictable, then allowance is made for them. In the case of any other additional costs arising during the year, if there is a sudden or substantial increase in costs, there is a Special Review procedure which can take account of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that in his recent negotiations with the farmers' unions there was general agreement with his proposal for a global £25 million increase; what disagreement there was about the allocation thereof; and whether he will give further details about the negotiations which led to this conclusion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what stage, and in what manner, the farmers' unions indicated to him that if their schedule of changes had been accepted there would have been an agreed settlement in the recent Price Review.

There is nothing I can add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for. Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on 31st May. I regret that I cannot give detailed information about the exchanges at Annual Reviews between the farmers' unions and the Government, since these are confidential.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers simply do not believe the statement issued by him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as to the agreement reached between the National Farmers' Union and his Department over the total award? Is this not because the farmers have been grossly misled? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a broadcast so that the true facts of this matter may reach, not only the farmers, but the taxpayers as well, who like to know how and why their money is spent?

I think that the statement I made in reply to a Question last week cleared up the situation. I do not believe there is any misunderstanding today. I hope that we can now regard this matter as closed, and can look to the future rather than to the past.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I desire to take no party advantage of this misunderstanding? I only desire to get it cleared up. Unlike his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), I do not cast any aspersion on Sir James Turner. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir James Turner has made a statement saying that the National Farmers' Union rejected both the total figure and the Government's schedule for allocating it? In the cir. cumstances, would it not be better and franker to say that there has been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and the National Farmers' Union?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reread the answer which I gave to a supplementary question last week, which did mention how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise, with different interpretations of an incident. I am satisfied that the Answers that I have given have cleared up the situation, and I really cannot think of any word I could add to make the position still clearer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he can now report on the preparation of an egg marketing scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered the Report of the commission on the egg marketing scheme; and what action he proposes to take.

The public inquiry into objections to the proposed egg marketing scheme submitted by the three farmers' unions was completed on 13th April. The commissioner who held the inquiry is now preparing his Report, and I expect to receive it in a week or so.

Will a statement be made to this House within a week or so?

No. I shall have to consider the Report when I receive it, and the Government will then have to decide whether to put the scheme, either in its present or in a modified form, before Parliament.

Will the Minister publish the verbatim report of the evidence which was given before the commission? It has aroused tremendous interest, and we should have it available to us.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) knows that it has previously been the practice not to publish the reports of commissions, but my colleagues and I will consider the question when the Report reaches us.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the need to strengthen the banks of the River Ouse at Whitgift, so as to prevent serious flooding of the adjacent agricultural land; and whether he will consult the Yorkshire Ouse River Board with a view to expediting its proposals for this work.

I have arranged for this matter to be discussed with the river board at a meeting to be held later this month.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers were under supervision on 30th April, 1956; and how many had been dispossessed in the year 1st May, I955. to 30th April, 1956.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of dispossession of land on the grounds of poor husbandry he has confirmed since October, 1951.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many orders for dispossession have been made under the Agriculture Acts during the last twelve months; what number applied to tenants and owner-occupiers, respectively; and what number included the dwelling-house.

Since 31st October, 1951, 259 farmers have been dispossessed on grounds of bad husbandry. The number dispossessed since 30th April, 1955, was seven, of whom five were tenants, and two owner-occupiers. In four of these cases the order covered the farmhouse. The number of farmers under supervision on 30th April, 1956, was 225.

In view of the fact that the number of cases of dispossession is not such as materially to affect the standards of husbandry, the expense involved in applying this procedure, and the distress and hardship caused to individuals who are evicted, will the Minister now consider abandoning this procedure alto-gether?

These policies are, of course, always under constant review. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Agriculture Act, 1947, contains a balance between benefits and obligations. Though I am aware of the concern felt among the public outside about these matters, it is very seldom indeed that I get a complaint from inside the farming community.

Does my right hon. Friend confirm the dispossession orders imposed in each case before action is taken on them? Does he review the cases?

Every case is considered at Ministerial level.

Will the Minister always keep in mind that it we give to the farmers security of markets and stability of prices, we can and we ought to expect from them a reasonable degree of efficiency in their use of the land?

I recognise that we have only a very limited quantity of good agricultural land in this small island, and that inevitably we are losing a good deal of it every year for purposes of development.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will initiate at the earliest possible moment such legislation as will prevent a repetition of dispossession of homes and property such as recently occurred.

Such an amendment of existing legislation raises wide issues. While I have these issues very much in mind, I cannot accept any suggestion that recent dispossessions were unjustified, having regard to the existing law.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether adequate thought has been given to the practice—I am concerned not so much with individual cases as with the vital principle that lies behind the utilisation of such powers, and any elected member of this House has a duty to safeguard human liberty? That is what I want my right hon. Friend to consider.

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposition upon which the 1947 Act was founded, that the possession of land in England involves a trust to use it properly? Will he stick to that and not be frightened off it by his hon. Friends?

I think that I have replied on that aspect of the case in answering a previous Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many young farmers who have difficulty either in obtaining a lease or purchasing agricultural land welcome my right hon. Friend's insistence that agricultural land shall be used rightly?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely galling if, because of the very strong demand for farms, farmers who cannot get possession of land see a promising farm abused.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Report on the provincial and local organisation and procedures of his Department.

Consultations with county agricultural executive committees and other organisations concerned are proceeding but in view of the far-reaching effect of some of the Wilson Committee's recommendations it is bound to be some little time before I can make a statement.

Appreciating that, and recognising that this is a first-class Report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay regard to the fact that the Wilson Committee itself says that this is the time to carry out these reforms because of the integration of the Ministries of Food and Agriculture?

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to pay another tribute to the thoroughness with which Sir Arton Wilson and his colleagues carried out a difficult task.

In view of the national need for economy and of the fact that the recommendations of the Arton Wilson Report would save at least £500,000 a year, will my right hon. Friend press on with these reforms?

Yes, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me no chance of doing anything but that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the disquiet occasioned by the dispossession of Lady Garbett, he will initiate urgent steps to restore the lady and her family to their rightful domicile.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the circumstances in which Lady Garbett was evicted from her farm at Horam in Sussex; and why a dispossession order made in 1953 was withdrawn by him, and not reissued until October, 1955.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why Lady Garbett, of Horeham Manor Farm, Horam, Sussex, was dispossessed of her house and land; and when he approved the action;

(2) when he will permit Lady Garbett, of Horeham Manor Farm, Horam, Sussex, to reoccupy her own farm house and her own land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why, in the recent case at Horam, Sussex, the owner-occupier was removed from her house.

A proposal to dispossess Lady Garbett was made in April, 1953, after three years of supervision. Lady Garbett appealed to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, but in view of the legal flaw in the notice the Ministry offered no evidence, and the appeal was allowed.

Lady Garbett remained under supervision, and a further inspection in May, 1955, showed that the farming had greatly deteriorated. For example, the cereal crop from the 1954 harvest had been wasted; the land was foul; and the farm was understocked. In the opinion of the county committee it is the worst case it has experienced.

In June, 1955, the Committee recommended dispossession, which was approved. Lady Garbett did not appeal, and a dispossession order was made on 26th October, requiring her to let the land to an approved tenant by 2nd February, 1956.

Lady Garbett took no action, and in March, 1956, the committee requested vacant possession within fourteen days. On 16th May a warrant was obtained from the justices requiring vacant possession to be given.

After careful consideration, the Committee advised that inclusion of the farm house was essential for proper farming, there being no other living accommodation on this holding. I understand that Horeham Manor Farm was not Lady Garbett's only home.

On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that I should be failing in my responsibility under the Agriculture Act if I were to permit her to resume occupation.

Did my right hon. Friend carry out properly and conform strictly to the 1947 Act of the Socialist Administration in removing Lady Garbett? Was she evicted or did she leave her farm house, and, if the latter, when did she leave? What previous experience had she of farming before entering upon this holding, and how much did the output—my right hon. Friend mentioned that it dropped—drop during the last twelve months of occupation?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the procedure has been entirely in accordance with the Act. The committee has in fact shown the greatest possible restraint and patience in dealing with this case. The reply to the second part of the question is that when the time came, Lady Garbett was, I think, evicted. The third part of the question dealt with production and Lady Garbett's farming abilities. I do not know what Lady Garbett's farming experience was before she took possession of this farm, but I do not think it could have been very much, seeing the way in which the farming has been conducted since.

As to production during the time, production throughout the four years has been extremely small, and with a decreasing trend. Production during the last twelve months was at a very low level indeed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great concern—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—not among those who have no value for private property and personal freedom at all, but among the public generally—at the wide powers which Departmental officials have, not only to enter private property, but also to turn people out of their homes—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us have the question heard and answered.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware that in this case the fact of whether or not Lady Garbett has another home has no bearing whatsoever on the question?

In reply to my hon. Friend I would say that these cases are of course extremely difficult, but I should like to emphasise one or two things. Lady Garbett has not been dispossessed of her property. She remains the owner of this farm. She has the alternatives of selling it or letting it herself to an approved tenant, or letting it to the committee so that the committee can let it to an approved tenant. What I can no longer accept is that Lady Garbett can remain in occupation of the farm.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that hundreds of people have been dispossessed of their homes, although they are making a far greater contribution towards the benefit of the country. without any protest from hon. Members opposite?

asked the Minister of Labour what special steps are being taken to offset the loss of manpower in the Warwickshire coal field, and with what results.

Special and continuing attention is given to coal mining vacancies in the Warwickshire coal field by employment exchanges in the area and also in other parts of Great Britain, and a Press publicity campaign has been undertaken in conjunction with the National Coal Board to increase the labour force there and in other areas where manpower in the mines is deficient. The number of workers on colliery books in Warwickshire increased by 162 in the first seventeen weeks of 1956 compared with a decrease of 91 in the same period of 1955.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consult his advisory committee on the desirability of appointing a committee to consider the application of a national wages policy.

No, Sir. The Government are not contemplating any change in our traditional policy of leaving wages to be settled by direct negotiation between employers and workers in individual industries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would not in any way impinge upon traditional policy, except in a modified sense? Is there not something to be said for giving consideration to a more progressive method of dealing with wage questions? Has the right hon. Gentleman not given the matter consideration?

Yes, Sir, I have given it a great deal of consideration. If the proposition is that all these negotiations and decisions should be considered and taken in the light of full knowledge of the country's economic position, of course I assent to that. We shall do everything we can to disseminate that knowledge as widely as possible, but if the suggestion is for a State co-ordinated wages policy, I am bound to say that I am certain that would be resented and opposed by both sides of industry, and I do not think it a practical proposition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at certain documents on this subject which were presented during the period of office of the Labour Government whilst I was at the Ministry of Fuel and Power?

I will look at those. The right hon. Member raised this question to some extent in a debate about a year ago, when he referred to the need for an economic council. I should have thought that the Government had quite enough advisory bodies in this and, indeed, in all other fields. As to the main question of a national wages policy, I am quite certain that that would not be acceptable to both sides of industry at present.

In view of the impact of new electronic methods and automation on production, is not this a matter which could be discussed at national production committee meetings with a view to seeing if there is a possibility of such a method of settling wages being worked out?

I am taking to the National Joint Advisory Council, over which I preside, some of the problems of automation, and we shall be discussing them next month.

asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the labour force at Standard Motor Company, Coventry, has been declared redundant; the reasons for such redundancy; and what suitable alternative employment is being found for those who lose their jobs.

I understand that the redundancy represents about 20 per cent. of those now employed. The reasons have been given in a statement issued on 30th May by the Standard Motor Company. The employment exchange service is helping those who register to find suitable alternative employment and registrations at the works are proceeding. The prospects of finding employment in Coventry and immediately neighbouring areas for the redundant workers are good in the case of highly skilled engineering workers and machine operators. In the case of other workers, local employment is unlikely to absorb all the redundant men in the immediate future, but there are vacancies in many kinds of industrial and transport undertakings which could be offered to them within daily travelling distance of Coventry.

Whilst readily agreeing that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to help men who are deprived of their livelihood, may I ask if it is not a fact that his efforts may be frustrated by lack of vacancies in the immediate neighbourhood and the immobility imposed on labour by the housing shortage? Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the sacking of men ought to be related to a Government plan for their reemployment and, if necessary, their retraining?

As to the first part of the supplementary question, I have answered the Question in regard to vacancies in Coventry and the immediate area. There are and will be difficulties, but on the whole the position is reasonably satisfactory, as the latest figures of employment and unemployment—published this morning—show. To reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I would say that that matter was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. There are powers available to me as Minister of Labour in the whole of this field. I do not think it is possible to isolate automation or any other form of technological change from any of the other reasons which may lead to the need for mobility of labour.

I agree with the Minister's last remark, but will he go a little further? The Prime Minister said a day or two ago that the Government would take a number of steps to ease the transfer of these people who have to go away from Coventry for their work. Can the Minister say what steps he is taking, and what are the powers open to him to which he has referred?

If I may say so, that is not quite an accurate paraphrase of what the Prime Minister said. If the right hon. Gentleman would like a list of the methods which are available to my Ministry in re-training and the allied fields, perhaps he will put down a Question.

I am asking the Minister for a list of steps which he is taking. The Prime Minister said, "We will take all steps to ease the process of transfer of the individual worker". Those are the exact words. I am asking the Minister to tell us what steps, if any, he is taking.

Exactly. I appreciate that, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, since that is another aspect of the matter, to put that Question down.

The Minister may recall that when in West Wales we were confronted, as we still are, with the problem of redundancy arising out of technological changes—although we did not call them automation—the Government set up a Committee called the Lloyd Committee to examine the problem and, in particular, the problem of providing alternative employment for those for whom no other employment was available in the immediate neighbourhood. In particular, it considered direct action by the Government in building factories. In his review of this problem, will the Minister consider such a step as that in the area concerned?

I said long ago that if we are confronted with what is to some extent a new situation we should not exclude any solution at all, and I am quite prepared to repeat that now. I believe that to be true. On the other hand, I do not think that the situation now is in any way comparable with that to which the right hon. Member refers. There are a great number of vacancies—still many more vacancies than people seeking employment. Although I know perfectly well that there will be hardship in individual cases, I think we ought to be able to meet the demands from labour arising out of any situation which I can foresee in the position in the Midlands or, indeed, elsewhere.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the radio and furniture trade who are on short-time working, at the latest convenient date.

It is estimated that in the week ended 2nd June about 3,000 in the radio industry and about 8,000 in the furniture industry were working short-time.

Will the Minister watch the position in these two industries? Short-time working appears to be increasing at a very rapid rate, and short-time working is very unsatisfactory to the work people employed in those two industries.

Yes, I will certainly watch it, but in both industries which the hon. Member has mentioned the recent trend has been downwards. The figures have declined both in the radio industry and in the furniture industry—2,000 in one case and 1,000 in the other in the fortnight previous to the figures which I have just given.

asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors are in the temporary grade; how many inspectors are seconded for work abroad; and how many, owing to lack of scientific and technical training, are attending, at the School of Technology, Leicester, a full-time course in scientific subjects.

Eight factory inspectors are temporary, one is seconded for work abroad and twelve are attending the course at Leicester.

In view of the fact that we need as many inspectors at work as possible, if it be only to perform routine inspections, may we have an assurance that these temporary inspectors, who were appointed during the war, I believe, will be retained, and that their services will not be dispensed with?

It is, of course, our general policy to replace temporary staff by permanent officials, but the whole question of the Factory Inspectorate is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend at the moment.

If these inspectors are in temporary employment after such a long period—as far back as the war—why has consideration not been given to establishment for them a long time ago, as is done in the rest of the Civil Service?

If the hon. Member has a specific question to ask on that point, perhaps he will put it down. I can reassure him that our Factory Inspectorate will be treated with fairness and consideration equal to that accorded to other sections of our service.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that it was the policy of his Department in 1954 that 50 per cent. of recruits to the Factory Inspectorate should have technical qualifications, why this policy has not yet been fully implemented.

There is a general shortage of technically qualified persons, and the question what proportion of the members of the general Factory Inspectorate should possess technical qualifications is one that I am now examining.

Would the Minister bear in mind that in 1954 the then Parliamentary Secretary, now the Minister of Transport, made it clear that it was then the policy of the Department to accept that at least 50 per cent. should be fully trained technical officers on recruitment? Is it not a fact that the real difficulty is that the Ministry, perhaps under pressure from the Treasury, are not able to offer suitable salary scales under today's conditions?

What the then Parliamentary Secretary said, on 12th November, 1954, was that

"While we should like 50 per cent. of the inspectorate to be technically trained, the fact is that the work of the General Inspectorate is not of a professional character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November. 1954; Vol. 532, c. 1640.]

I think that is slightly different from the gloss which the hon. Member has put upon those words. I can assure him that this is not a question of Treasury interference at all. I have in front of me a very fine Report. about which the hon. Member knows—the Departmental Report, which has recently reached me. In the light of that, I am examining what would be the beg proportion, for the future, of technically qualified persons in the Inspectorate.

Will the Minister be good enough to let us see a copy of that Report? Will he place it in the Library, in view of the fact that he has not considered it desirable to publish it?

A real difficulty exists here. It is not usual to publish such reports, as the hon. Member knows, but I recognise the interest in this matter. Partly because the Report is, I think, such an excellent Report, I will reexamine the way in which I can make hon. Members who are particularly interested in this subject cognisant of the main recommendations of the Report.

asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors have been appointed since March, 1953; of these, how many are now in post; and, of these, how many are graduates in engineering, physics or chemistry, respectively, and how many have recognised professional qualifications in building construction or civil engineering.

Altogether, 57 factory inspectors have been appointed since March, 1953, of whom 48 are now in post. Of these two are graduates in engineering, two in physics, two in chemistry, and none has recognised professional qualifications in building construction or civil engineering.

Does not the answer highlight the very great difficulty with which the Ministry is faced? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that before the war two out of every three were fully qualified technically? Is not something radical to be done to see that the Inspectorate, which used to be a model which we held up before the whole world, returns to its original and pristine reputation?

We are certainly aware of the problems involved at the moment, but I would rather not add to what my right hon. Friend has said. Replying to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I must stand up for the general quality of the work which is being done by the Inspectorate as it exists at the moment. I do not think that the hon. Member himself means to denigrate that in any way by his remarks.

asked the Minister of Labour to what extent short-time working has now decreased in the motor car industry.

The estimated number on short time in the manufacture of motor cars and accessories, after rising to a peak of 52,000 at Whitsuntide, has since fallen to 22,000 in the week ended 2nd June.

Is it not clear that the Government were grossly over-optimistic in expecting the situation to clear up during the summer? Is it not now full of forebodings for the coming winter? Would it not be better now, before the situation deteriorates in the autumn and the winter, to call together both sides of the industry, so that they can face the problem as it is likely to be?

I should have thought that the decline in the figures for some considerable time shows that on the whole the Opposition, and particularly the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), were grossly over-pessimistic in the debate which took place on employment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, because when we have high-cost technological equipment working only part of its potential full time, we tend to increase the cost of the product and not lower it?

I do not dissent from that, and it is one of the matters about which we are in constant discussion now.

asked the Minister of Labour what approaches he has had made to him concerning recent redundancies among employees at the Birmingham Small Arms Works; and what action he has taken or proposes to take to provide employment for those affected.

I am informed that notices were issued to 300 workers at the end of last week, but, apart from those who are leaving at their own request or who are due to retire, they are being offered alternative work in one or other of the factories in the Birmingham Small Arms organisation. The services of the employment exchanges will remain available to assist any who, for one reason or another, find this offer unacceptable.

May I first ask whether the Minister will check his figure, because I think that it is now 301? Is he aware that that one claims that he has been victimised? If there has, in fact, been victimisation, cannot the Minister inter. vene and perhaps refer the case to the individual's union so that that union can take up the matter for him? Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether or not Sir Bernard Docker has been sacked because he has been touring round the world for six months of the year on his yacht, or whether there is not some other reason for this incident?

I am bound to say that the hon. Member started his supplementary question so long ago that I have forgotten what it was, but if it was his usual supplementary question, I dare say that "No, Sir" will meet it.

In this complicated matter, would my right hon. Friend consult the dockers' union?

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to intervene in the industrial dispute at Norton Motors Limited, Birmingham, which has resulted in a strike of several hundreds of workers.

I am aware of this dispute, but my Department has not been asked to intervene. I understand that there is procedure available within the industry for discussing matters of this kind.

As this matter has now reached a complete deadlock, and as the dispute has now lasted for six weeks, will the Minister reconsider whether he can take any action? Will he also say whether, if invited by one party or another to use the services of conciliation, he is prepared to do so?

The dispute has been going on for a long time, it is true, but it has only been an official dispute since 29th May. I think that both sides know that existing machinery is available for use. Both sides equally know that I am very ready to try to help through my conciliation machinery if I can, but I think it is right that, the position having been made clear, this should be left to them. If I am invited to help, I will, of course, do everything I can.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that mass dismissals of workers engaged in industrial disputes are endangering industrial peace; and if he will call a conference of both sides of industry in order to discuss means of improving conciliation machinery so as to prevent such situations arising.

If the hon. Member is referring to recent events in the motor industry I am, of course, aware of the position and my Ministry keeps closely in touch with it. But these difficulties are more than matters of machinery and I have no grounds for thinking that a conference of the kind suggested would serve a useful purpose.

Is the Minister aware that I am referring specifically to the sort of action which has been taken in relation to the Norton Motors strike, and which has been taken by several firms? In the event of an industrial dispute the practice has been to sack all the people on strike. Does not the Minister agree that that is a course of action likely to create great industrial bitterness and to prolong the dispute?

Of course, it is possible that industrial bitterness can come from any redundancy or large-scale alteration in size of a labour force. The Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's main Question was that these are much more than machinery matters. I believe that the existing machinery is adequate. Part of the trouble is that frequently the machinery is not used, and often there are not early enough consultations with the unions most concerned. It should always be the case that negotiation should start from the beginning of any proposal which may effect the size of a labour force.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consult with representatives of the universities and technical colleges and of industry regarding the effect upon the recruitment of students of the granting of deferment of National Service to certain categories of graduates and those holding equivalent qualifications.

Deferment is not granted to any category of graduates as such but deferments are granted to certain individual science and engineering graduates who are engaged in work of particular national importance. I have received no representations as to the effect of deferment of this kind on the recruitment of students to universities and technical colleges.

I appreciate what the Minister has done but, at the same time, recognising the desperate shortage there is of particular scientists, will he go a little further to see that these particular scientists, who can serve no particularly useful purpose in the Services, go where they are so urgently required?

The number of deferments this year is expected to be about 1,400, and it is a graph that has been climbing very steeply indeed over the last two years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham, and what is the normal capacity of the gaol; how many of these prisoners resided, prior to conviction, within the City of Birmingham; how many prisoners, who were convicted at Birmingham, have been transferred to other prisons during the past five years; and how many of these have been returned to Winson Green, subsequently.

On 29th May, 1956, there were 509 male prisoners in Birmingham Prison and 73 female. Under normal conditions the prison has in all accommodation for 520 men and 148 women, of whom 397 men and 113 women can be accommodated in ordinary accommodation as distinct from special accommodation such as hospital wards, etc. I regret that the other information requested is not available.

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to the House what factors are taken into consideration before convicted prisoners are put on the transfer list? Does he not agree that it increases the punishment of convicted persons if they are taken so far away from the area in which they are convicted. as they are then not able to have the facilities for visits as they would have if they were taken to a prison nearer to their own homes?

I can assure the hon. Member that I have every sympathy with the point which he has just expressed. It is difficult, I know, but under existing circumstances we are compelled to move people to avoid gross overcrowding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders have taken place in this country during the last three months; and how this figure compares with the number of murders committed during the corresponding period of each of the five preceding years.

I regret that the figures for May, 1956, are not yet available. The number of murders recorded as known to the police during the months of February, March and April, 1956, was 42. The corresponding figures for preceding years were: 1951, 31; 1952, 48; I953, 52; 1954, 46; 1955, 56.

Whilst it is difficult to draw any final conclusion from these figures, do they not at least indicate that the fears of a sudden, and perhaps dramatic, increase in the number of murders have not been realised?

As I think my hon. Friend will remember, I did indicate during one or two of the debates which we have had on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill that even a period of ten years would scarcely be sufficient to come to a conclusion in these matters, and I am certain that three months would not be sufficient.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was on his instructions that at the inquest on George Henry Canning, who died in one of Her Majesty's prisons, the prison officer concerned, the governor of the prison and the Prison Commissioners were all represented at the inquest by the same solicitor and counsel; and when and on what grounds it was decided that the interests of these parties to the inquiry were not in conflict.

These arrangements, for which I accept responsibility, were made by the Prison Commissioners after taking legal advice. As regards the governor, it is routine practice for a solicitor or counsel representing a Government Department to represent also the officer in charge of the unit or branch concerned

As regards the officer, the Commissioners, on the information before them, following the police investigation of the case, saw no reason to foresee any conflict of interests. Accordingly, on 4th May they offered to arrange for their representative to watch his interests if he so wished, and he accepted.

Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate how very unsatisfactory his Answer is? Does he not appreciate that this was a case in which a man, for whose personal safety the Prison Commissioners were responsible, had died in circumstances of some violence, and that where-as the right and duty of the prison officer was to defend himself from criticism, the duty of the Prison Commissioners was to be impartial and to ascertain the truth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—this is a very important matter—and, that, therefore, since the evidence—[HON. MEMBERS; "Speech."]. Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to ask the Question?

Order. Let the Question be asked and answered.

Therefore, since the evidence was known to be conflicting, there was an obvious difference of interest between the Prison Commissioners and the prison officer, and that an inquiry in which those conflicting interests were represented by the same solicitor and counsel was obviously a travesty of justice?

The hon. Gentleman will probably not be surprised to hear that I could not agree with what he says. The fact is that when this occurrence took place, the police made the fullest investigations, entirely independent of any prison officer at all. They were allowed to question all prisoners without any prison officer being present. As a result of the investigation, the governor and the Prison Commissioners came to the conclusion that there was no conflict of interest whatever between the prison officer and the Commissioners, and therefore they decided that those men should be represented by the same persons.

Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that what he has just said amounts to a statement by the Home Office, for which he is responsible, that they, with the assistance of the police, prejudged the very question which the coroner was investigating?

That is quite an inaccurate statement.

It is not.

The investigation was made by the police and not by the Home Office. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say about the coroner, I can only repeat what he is reported to have said—namely, that everybody would agree that the inquiry had been very properly carried out.

While not wishing to suggest that there has been an improper motive in this matter, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he will take full account of the fact that the public is necessarily very much more anxious about the form of inquiry into events which occur in prison under strict authority than about an inquiry conducted into events occurring outside? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether in future it would not in the normal case be better that there should be separate representation of all parties, even if it happens to be the opinion of the police or the Prison Commissioners that there is no conflict?

I will look into that point, but I think it is proper to point out that there was obviously no conflict in this particular case, and, so far as the public are concerned, there was an inquiry by the coroner, who expressed the view that the investigation was very properly carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to ensure that the relatives of George Henry Canning were legally represented at the inquest into his death in prison.

It was for the relatives themselves to decide whether to be legally represented at the inquest and to seek legal advice on this matter if they were in doubt, and no action was called for on my part.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman even yet appreciate that the whole conduct of the matter was hopelessly biassed from the start, and that if the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that it was proper for the prison officer to be represented at public expense by solicitor and counsel instructed by him, this ceased to be a routine matter, and the relatives of the man principally concerned ought to have been offered the same facilities?

I must once again repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is so biassed in this matter.

I am not.

He obviously is biassed. I have made plain that the whole of this inquiry was perfectly properly conducted.

I do not agree.

That convinces me even more that what I am saying is right. It was open to the relatives to have legal representation if they had wanted it. Both this man's brothers were there for two days of the inquiry, and one was there for the other day. It was open to them to have legal representation if they wanted it.

It seems to me from what I have heard that this is a matter which cannot be thrashed out at Question Time without infringing the rights of other Members. The hon. Member should try to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and, in the meantime, ask Question 39.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities were afforded, prior to the inquest, to the relatives of George Henry Canning to inquire into the circumstances resulting in his death.

I am not clear what sort of facilities the hon. Member has in mind, but in fact none were requested.

Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that where there was a body of evidence which blamed a prison officer for the death, and a substantial body of evidence which denied it, then the opportunity of which the Prison Commissioners availed themselves for questioning both sides and arriving at an opinion, which prejudged the whole issue, ought to have been offered to the relatives of the man who died? Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that all the witnesses in the case were in his custody and under his control the whole time?

That is quite untrue. I have said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first Question that when the police made their inquiries no prison officer was present.

That is not my point.

It is one of the points, anyway. With regard to prejudging the case, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read what the coroner said at the end of the inquiry.

On a point of order. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory reply to these three Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of having the matter debated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the increase in trading from vans after the legal closing hour of 8 p.m. for fixed shops arising from a decision given by Lord Justice Hewart some years ago; and if he will now amend the law to bring to an end competition now being experienced by occupiers of fixed shops who have to pay high rentals and increased rates this year.

I am aware that the law relating to shops needs revision, both as regards trading otherwise than in shops and other matters, and I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 10th May to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Is the Minister not aware that the Shops Act, 1950, has not cleared up the confusion that arises on the question of the hour until which these vans can trade? In a recent case the principal of a firm said that the question of the hours worked by his employees was left entirely to them, and that the commission which he offered encouraged them to work until late at night?

That is why I have said that legislation is necessary and will be introduced as soon as practicable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what complaints were made to the police at Leman Street Police Station during the late evening and early morning of 11th and 12th May, concerning a robbery at Swedenborg Square, Stepney what losses were reported; and whether he will make a statement;

(2) if he is aware that at a party at a licensed club in Swedenborg Square, E.1, during the late evening and early morning of 11th and 12th May, those taking part smoked marijuana cigarettes; what action the police propose to take against those responsible for breaking the law; and whether he will make a statement.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the police had been notified of the intention to hold the party at this address, which is not a registered club, that they visited the premises during the late evening and early morning, and also patrolled the vicinity. During the party a handbag and a raincoat were stolen. There was no public disturbance, and the police are satisfied that marijuana cigarettes were not smoked.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Press report that a large amount of jewellery was stolen and reported as lost? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman further aware that the people in the East End, who work hard by day, wish to sleep at night so that they can be prepared to work the following day? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that people did complain because this late night party kept lorry drivers awake? Will the Secretary of State consider the matter again?

There was one complaint about noise. That is the only one that has come to the notice of the police.

asked the secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make available a transcript of the evidence given at the trial of George Frederick Thatcher on 23rd June, 1952, to Thatcher's Member of Parliament.

I regret that I have been unable to obtain a transcript of evidence given at this trial. The evidence has never been transcribed, and the shorthand writers inform me that despite prolonged and extensive search, they have been unable to trace the relevant notebook.

Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what firm of shorthand writers was responsible for this notebook?

I do not think I can give the hon. Gentleman that information because the responsibility for shorthand writers is not mine. The hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Eisenhower and Marshal Bulganin that hydrogen bomb tests should cease immediately pending the outcome of the present United Nations discussions on disarmament.

I shall, with permission, be making a statement at the end of Questions which will have reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider strengthening the department that advises him on economic affairs.

The volume of advice which I already receive from many quarters on economic affairs—including the advice the hon. Member is, no doubt, about to give me—is formidable. I see no present need to add to it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is rather weak on oil? Is he further aware that he delivered a series of what the Observer called dangerously misleading slogans last weekend on the subject of the Middle East, and argued that if we did not have Cyprus and if we did not have oil, we would have hunger and unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to ask the Government of Sweden how the Swedes get oil without any bases in the Middle East?

That would be a very interesting exercise, and Sweden can no doubt take her responsibility. There is not the slightest doubt that the economy of this country and of its neighbours in Western Europe depends upon oil from the Middle East.

Would not the Prime Minister consider appointing in this respect his new supporter Mr. Khrushchev who, I see, said yesterday, "I am for the Conservatives"?

I have tried to make a rule not to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the bid which has been made by an American company for the stock units of a British oil company, and in view of the importance, for the maintenance of full employment, of the continued control of oil supplies, whether he will use his power to prevent the control of this company from passing to foreign hands.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is Yes, Sir. On the second part, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, concerned to ensure that the interests of Trinidad are fully safeguarded, and are in touch with the Government of Trinidad on this aspect of the matter. While they are anxious not to put obstacles in the way of United States investment in appropriate cases, they have not yet had time to give full consideration to this matter in all its aspects.

While the Chancellor is considering this matter in all its aspects, will he realise that things are moving very quickly? Should he not take as his first principle the fact that basic supplies within this country should, so far as possible, not pass out of the control of this country? Secondly, has he noticed, from the remarkable—or, perhaps, not so remarkable—increase in the price of shares on the Stock Exchange today, that some people at any rate think that the result of an increase in the monopoly holding in the British oil industry by American interests is going to provide very good pickings for somebody, presumably at the expense of the consumer? Will he therefore be prepared to take quite speedy action to deal with this problem?

All these are matters which are under consideration at the moment.

Is the Chancellor aware—as I am sure he is—that the Trinidad company is the one big employer, the only big employer, in Trinidad, and that this sell-out to the American dollar, if it takes place, will have a disastrous effect upon the whole Caribbean Federation? Will my right hon. Friend take that seriously into account, because of our already dwindling Empire?

Those are all matters which, as soon as I heard of this at all, made me consult the Colonial Secretary and immediately get in touch with the Government of Trinidad.

May I ask the Chancellor whether, in view of the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the House look forward with very great interest indeed to the establishment of a Caribbean Dominion in the not-too-distant future, he will, in addition to consulting his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, have consultations with the Minister in the Caribbean who will be deeply concerned about this?

I have said that I am in touch with the Colonial Secretary; no doubt he will bring all these aspects of the problem to my attention.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House whether the Government's approval is necessary before any contracts are exchanged in connection with this deal?

All that depends upon the character of the deal; these are rather technical points upon which different aspects of Government consent may be required, according to the character of the proposed transaction.

Would the Chancellor please reconsider his last answer, and not rely purely upon the technical aspects of this matter? Will he not take into account the fact that the British Commonwealth today is producing only one-quarter of its oil requirements, and that we shall need much more? Will he bear in mind that there are fundamental political considerations at stake here? Will he make a very early statement that the Government will take steps to prevent any transfer of the seat of power in this company out of this country?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has quite mistaken what I said. I was asked what powers the Government had. The question of what legal powers the Government have is a technical matter, because they depend upon the precise character of the transaction proposed. It is into all those questions that we are now inquiring.

May we be assured that, if the Chancellor's investigations reveal that he has not got the necessary powers to prevent this deal, he will come to the House and ask for them?

That is quite a different question.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is really important that a quick decision should be taken here? Does he realise the urgency of it?

Of course, it is important to have a quick decision; but it is also necessary to know precisely what is proposed in order that we may have an opportunity of considering it.

Is the Chancellor aware that he certainly gave the House the impression that the Government were not very enthusiastic about this deal and that they would try to prevent it? How does he reconcile that with his last remark, which suggested that if he had not got the powers he might not wish to take them?

As this matter is in a sense sub judice, I have tried—[Interruption.] It is quite useful to know precisely what is proposed before we know what precise decision to take on it. It seems to me that the order of importance is to know what is the attitude of the colonial Government concerned what is the effect upon the Colonial Territories concerned, and to consider the effect upon our own economy. When we have considered all that in its broad aspects, we will make as early a decision as it is practicable to make.