asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a comparison made of the sale prices of private dwelling-houses, as noted upon the particulars delivered to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931, and the annual values of such dwelling-houses, as assessed for Income Tax, Schedule A; and if he will make a statement concerning the relationship so found between current sale prices and annual values during the most recently convenient six-months' period.

My right hon. Friend does not think that the value of the result of such an inquiry would justify the work involved.

Would it not be valuable, however, to have these figures to assist landlords and tenants now negotiating for the purchase of properties as a result of the Rent Act? Will not my hon. and learned Friend consider this again and see whether such a guide could be produced?

Even in the light of the considerations urged by my hon. Friend, it would demand an unjustifiable and disproportionate amount of work and expense.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate, based upon information supplied to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931, and other information provided by stamp duty on conveyances, of the comparison between the current sale price of a private dwellinghouse at £1,500 to £3,000 and the sale price of a similar house in 1956 and 1957, respectively.

A small sample suggests an increase of between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. for 1958 over 1956 and 1957.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that some firms are not passing on to their customers reductions in Purchase Tax made in the Budget; and if he will make a statement on this position with regard to current stocks of merchandise and with regard to stocks not yet held.

It is common knowledge that many firms decided to reduce the prices of existing stocks immediately after the Budget. As to goods to which the Budget reductions apply, I would refer the hon. Member to Answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to Questions on 24th April.

That did not get us anywhere. Is the Financial Secretary aware that Customs and Excise men said that the reductions in Purchase Tax should mean a reduction to customers of 1½d. in the shilling on cosmetics? Is he further aware that big firms such as Goya and Yardley actually put up their prices? Does he not agree that such firms should be named in this House? Am I not right in assuming that the cosmetics industry is a flourishing one financially?

I am not aware of any official statement made on behalf of the Customs and Excise. The other matters not only lie outside the sphere of my personal experience but within the province of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that, as I said last week, this is a betrayal of the purpose of the Purchase Tax reduction? In the line of cosmetics, only one cosmetics firm has not put up its prices. What has happened is that the firms have put up their cost price so that the retailer gets no more profit but the manufacturer does, and the consumer, of course, is the person who always has to suffer in the long run. Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman at least ask his right hon. Friend to make representations to these people who defeat the purpose of the Budget?

As I indicated, and as the hon. Lady recognises, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and no doubt his attention will be drawn to the matter. In any case, I believe that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) is shortly going on a shopping expedition with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

I have had no notice from the Minister that he intends going shopping.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that most European countries no longer insist on a visitor, bringing a motor car into their country for a visit, being in possession of a Customs carnet for their car; and if, as a result of his examination of the question of simplifying the system, he will now grant similar facilities to visitors to the United Kingdom.

No, Sir. We must continue to require these documents for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 12th December in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).

In view of the great importance of the tourist trade as an earner of foreign exchange, does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that everything should be done to remove these vexatious restrictions? Why is it impossible for us to do what other countries can do quite easily?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tourist industry, but we have a large home industry to protect and a large revenue at stake.

Cannot the Financial Secretary look at this again? Is he aware that the number of cars that will be sold on this market which are imported from abroad under tourist licences will be very small indeed and could not possibly be a danger to the home trade, and, furthermore, that this is a definite handicap to our tourist industry? Is he not aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the long delays which occur at Dover when tourists bring in their cars? If the carnet were abolished, would this not facilitate the entry of these cars?

I have recently looked into this matter personally. The Customs authorities have recently reduced the scale of examination of visitors' cars at the ports, and I hope that this will help in the matters to which the hon. Member has referred.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, since the coming into force of the Cheques Act, 1957, the commercial practice has now developed of failing to send receipts for payments made by cheque whether such receipts are requested by the payer or not; and whether by reason of this change of practice it is now intended to repeal or modify Section 103 of the Stamp Act, 1891, which provides a penalty of £10 for failure to give a stamped receipt for any payment when called upon; if he is further aware that this change is against the interest of the payer who is, or may be, put to the inconvenience of proving association of a paid cheque to a particular account instead of having, as hitherto, the bill returned duly receipted; and if he will now make a further statement of Government policy on this matter.

My right hon. Friend is keeping this matter under review, but the Finance Bill now before Parliament contains no proposal for changing the present law. I take this opportunity of repeating that a person who fails to give a duly stamped receipt for a payment of £2 or over, when required to do so by the payer, renders himself liable to a fine of £10.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but does he not realise that plenty of evidence could be given—I myself could provide it—that receipts are not given when the sum is over £2? As the Department is keeping its eye on the matter, when will it be appropriate to put down another Question on the subject?

I do not want to encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman to put dawn another Question at too early a date. With regard to the first part of his supplementary question, if there is difficulty about this and if a receipt is not given when demanded, the matter should be reported to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who can then take appropriate action.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, on a very simple calculation, it can be shown that this practice of dispensing with receipts is saving commerce, industry, the professions and the local authorities about £13 million a year?

I have no statistics to support that figure, and, of course, there is a Question on the Order Paper about the possible loss of revenue; but those are the sort of considerations my right hon. Friend will take into account.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the estimated annual cost of collecting entertainment tax from cinemas in the current financial year.

I regret that no separate estimate of the cost of collecting this duty is available.

Does my hon. and learned Friend not consider it important to obtain these statistics? Unless we know the cost of collecting the Entertainments Duty, it is quite impossible to view the value of the tax in relation to its cost. Will he please take steps to obtain the information?

The officers who are charged with the administration of the Entertainments Duty have many other duties as well. This is only a small part of their obligations. So far as the general position is concerned, the cost of collecting and administering Customs and Excise Duties and allied matters was about 0·82 per cent. of the revenue collected, and it is not thought that the proportionate cost of collecting Entertainments Duty differs substantially from that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of Customs Duty and Purchase Tax on automatic lighters for household cookers and other purposes.

The rate of Purchase Tax applicable to automatic lighters for household cookers, if sold separately, is 30 per cent. Liability to Customs or Excise Duty varies according to the lighter, and particulars will be found on pages 161 and 249 of the Customs and Excise Tariff. I regret that the total yield of revenue from these sources is not available.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that matches are the greatest cause of accident in the home and that mothers who avoid matches are penalised, on a 7s. 6d. hand lighter, by taxes totalling 5s.? Is that not ridiculous.

I know the hon. Lady's great interest in this matter, and, indeed, I had the benefit of it when I was at the Home Office. I would emphasise to her, however, that the safety match is not necessarily more dangerous than an automatic lighter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Purchase Tax on the Crayleigh safety device attached to cookers; and if he will now abolish this tax.

I am told that the Purchase Tax on this device amounts to 4s. 11d. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the hon. Lady's representations that it should be freed from tax, but he has come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to discriminate among the domestic safety devices which happen to fall within the scope of Purchase Tax.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am perfectly satisfied that it would not matter if the Purchase Tax were taken off, having regard to the volume of evidence of evading the passing on of the Tax relief which is now in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade? I am quite sure that his Purchase Tax reduction is a farce and is useless.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what figure the Budget reductions on Purchase Tax have reduced the cost of living.

While the Budget changes will represent only a fraction of a point in the Index of Retail Prices, they will nevertheless reduce the burden of taxation this year by about £30 million.

How does the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at these conclusions? Is he not aware that the relief from Purchase Tax is not being passed on and will not be passed on? The hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), referred to what was said by the President of the Board of Trade on 24th April, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked if he would ensure, by legislation, that Purchase Tax reliefs are passed on to the consuming public and not delayed on the way. The right hon. Gentleman gave an unequivocal "No, Sir." So they can do as they like. The hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend instead of being a Santa Claus is, therefore, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

There is no question but that by and large the Purchase Tax reductions are being passed on to the public, as anybody going through the shopping centres of any town can see.

Can the Financial Secretary tell us how much of this £30 million has been passed on?

The right hon. Gentleman, who was Financial Secretary himself, knows that the £30 million is for the rest of the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, ever since Budget Day, the national and local newspapers have been absolutely smothered with advertisements showing reductions of price?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total value of public investment through the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in the steel industry, including subsidiary companies, part holdings in companies now sold, and loans made or contracted to be made.

The total book value of the Agency's investments, including loans contracted to be made, is £223·5 million.

Does not that interesting Answer indicate just how dependent the British steel industry still is on public support and investment?

Many deductions could be drawn from that Answer, but I am not sure that I will accept that one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the saving in Inland Revenue staff salaries if taxpayers assessed to Income Tax, Schedule A, were entitled to claim as an allowance the tax so assessed for any period of residential occupation of the property by the taxpayer, his wife or other dependent relative, bearing in mind that maintenance claims on such property would then be unnecessary.

On the assumption that my hon. Friend's Question is directed to the abolition of tax under Schedule A for residential owner-occupiers, giving that term a slightly extended meaning, the saving might be of the order of £½ million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the proportion in the latest convenient year of owner-occupied residential properties in respect of which claims for maintenance against Income Tax, Schedule A, assessments are not made.

About eleven-twelfths in 1957–58.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this high proportion indicates that many people who could make claims are not doing so, possibly because they are unaware that they can do so, and that if, in fact, they did claim it would substantially increase the amount refunded?

To some extent, the small proportion may be due to ignorance of the procedure, but not entirely, because there is the statutory deduction. Of course, if more claims were made, the yield would be less.

What would be the return of Schedule A tax if all claims were made? Would it not, in fact, be a very small sum? Under those circumstances, will not the Chancellor consider abolishing Schedule A tax altogether?

In the absence of claims, it is impossible to quantify them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in savings of all sorts in 1951 and 1957 compared with 1946.

Total national saving, before providing for depreciation and stock appreciation, increased by just over 400 per cent. between 1946 and 1951, and by 700 per cent. between 1946 and 1957. These figures cover saving by persons, companies, public corporations and central and local government, and are based on the estimates given in Table 6 of the National Income Blue Books for 1956 and 1957, and the recent National Income White Paper (Cmd. 398).

Is this not yet another very welcome sign of the great success of this Government?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects proposals to assure better coordination in the acceptance of suitably qualified students to be made by the universities.

The universities are at present considering improvements in the procedure for the admission of students and are having informal discussions on the subject. I understand that the results will probably be made public late in the summer.

In view of the numbers of students who are now qualified for entry but who have been unable to obtain places, can the hon. and learned Gentleman give some indication of whether it will be possible to put into practice the results before the beginning of next Session. Will the report come in time for that?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is really a matter for the universities themselves and not for my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether the report will contain matters which can be implemented in time for the next academic year, but the universities, as I happen to know, already have the matter under review individually.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any attention is being given to the need for a vastly increased number of admission places by 1963, when the bulge in the birthrate will reach the universities?

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the statement made by my right hon. Friend about the increased building programme for the middle 'sixties.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost in foreign currency to date of the repatriation of £ notes recently undertaken.

An exact figure cannot be given, but during the first month of freedom for imports of sterling notes the amount repatriated appears to have been small.

Of course, the Bank of England and the public appear to have different views about what is "small." Could not the House be given some idea of the total figure involved to date in actual money terms rather than the adjectival terms that the Minister has condescended to use?

I do not think it would be possible to give that information. The hon. Member referred to the total cost in foreign currency. The cost in foreign currency is not necessarily anything like the same figure as the total amount of sterling notes imported.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of United Kingdom-owned dollar securities; whether he will cause these securities to be registered with the Bank of England; and whether he will from time to time publish figures of the value of these securities.

Figures published in the U.S.A. and Canada show that at the end of 1956 the market value of United Kingdom-owned dollar securities was of the order of 3,000 million dollars. I do not propose to have these securities registered with the Bank of England. The holders are already required to deposit them with an authorised depository.

Does the Minister really think it a satisfactory situation that he is dependent upon Canadian and American figures to inform him what this fundamental part of our dollar reserves is? What good reason is there that the Bank of England should not have charge of these securities so that, in the event of a crisis similar to that of last September, they will be immediately available to support the £?

The present system of having these deposited with authorisd depositories is quite satisfactory.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities are officially made available to United Kingdom importers for the hedging in sterling of obligations undertaken in foreign currency; and whether he will cause these facilities to be extended in such manner as will discourage premature payment for imports and encourage importers to make maximum use of credit facilities from their suppliers.

Authorised banks may sell foreign currency for forward delivery to any United Kingdom importer who has a firm commitment to pay the currency for which cover is required. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Is the Minister satisfied that the facilities for forward purchase are freely and cheaply available to British importers even for long periods ahead? Will he look into the matter to see why it is that British importers feel it necessary to make premature payment for imports to protect their currency position and hence bring a kind of speculative pressure to bear upon sterling from time to time?

The fact that people are trying to make forward purchases of currency surely shows they do not intend to make an immediate payment in that currency.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchase of miners' safety boots and helmets have been reported to him over the past year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' protective boots during the past 12 months have been reported to his Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots during the last financial year have been reported to him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change has been noted in his department in the sales of miners' protective clothing in Scotland during the past year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of mineworkers' protective clothing, in particular miners' safety boots and helmets, have been reported to him over the last 12 months for Wales.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increased purchases of miners' and quarrymen's protective clothing during the last financial year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received on the increase in the purchase of protective clothing by miners and quarrymen during the last year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received of increases in the purchases of miners' safety boats and protective helmets during the past 12 months.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of miners' protective equipment have been reported to him from the West Midlands area during the past year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increases in purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots in the Nottinghamshire area over the past 12 months.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots during the last financial year have been reported to him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increasing purchases of miners' safety equipment, such as boots and protective helmets, over the past year.

My right hon. Friend has not received any such reports.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there will be widespread relief now that this foolish tax has been taken from these articles and that the sales will not go down in the coming year?

I cannot accept that the tax was foolish, but I am very grateful for what the hon. Lady has said.

Whilst appreciating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in removing this Purchase Tax from miners' safety boots and protective helmets, will he go a stage further and define what are the items of protective clothing and safety equipment? Secondly, will he take steps to remove Purchase Tax from all these articles, particularly having in mind that firemen's helmets are still subject to this tax?

Successive Governments have found it impracticable to devise a definition of "protective clothing". It is for that reason that the exemption in favour of miners' helmets has not been extended. But that is no doubt a matter which we can discuss further on the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the estimated revenue from Purchase Tax is £100,000 per annum; and, in this context, what will be the loss of revenue from the reduction in tax on miners' caps and miners' belts.

On the assumption that the first part of the Question refers to the 5 per cent. Purchase Tax on miners' and quarry men's boots and helmets proposed in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, the Answer is "Yes, Sir." But, as my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday, he has decided to restore in the Finance Bill the exemptions on these articles. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is not possible to estimate the reduction in revenue on the particular articles referred to.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the cost of boots, helmets and general clothing needed by underground workers in the pits is double the cost incurred by most workers in connection with their various trades; and what estimate he has made of the average extra cost to miners per year above that of other workers.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," no statistics are available on which any such comparison could be based; and in these circumstances the second part of the Question does not arise.

It may be true that there are no statistics relevant to the point involved, but does not the Financial Secretary think that before such a drastic change is made he might have investigated the problem and had a better idea of what ought to be done?

Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did investigate this matter before making the proposal in the Budget. On the other hand, it was quite clear from last week that the general feeling of the House was that strict logic and administrative tidiness should yield to wide social considerations. I reported that to my right hon. Friend and he again made these articles exempt.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of industrial workers' protective clothing, particularly miners' safety boots and helmets, have been reported to him over the last twelve months in Scotland.

I would refer the hon. Member to my Answers to the Questions just asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend does not receive reports of purchases of industrial workers' protective clothing, which has indeed been found to be incapable of definition.

Is protective clothing in the form of protective boots and shoes, used in the shipbuilding industry, exempt from taxation as well?

Speaking from recollection, I would certainly say that they are not exempt from taxation; but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a specific Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives from the mining industry since imposing Purchase Tax on miners' protective clothing.

None, Sir.

Would it not be advisable for the representatives of the Treasury to have discussions with the miners' representatives and similar organisations if in future they have such silly and stupid proposals to bring forward as the taxation of protective clothing?

I certainly cannot accept the hon. Member's epithets. It would be contrary to every usage to have discussions before the Budget statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the difference in the Profits Tax yield from co-operative societies as the result of the increase in tax rate payable and the allowance now made for interest on share capital.

An increase of about £1·3 million.

Will the Financial Secretary recall that the effect on industry generally was a reduction of £16 million and that he himself said that the effect on building societies would be a reduction of about £1 million? Can he say whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made these changes, to single out the Co-operative movement as being the only form of activity liable to an increased tax liability as a result of recent changes?

There is no question of singling out the Co-operative movement. The Profits Tax is a tax on the profits of corporate bodies and, as such, it ought to apply to all such bodies alike. That was the recommendation the Royal Commission on Taxation.

Is it the policy of the Government that there should be an increase in the taxation on the profits of co-operative societies at the present time? If so, what is the justification for it?

Certain corporate bodies under the re-organisation of taxes recommended by the Royal Commission will, in the result, have to pay more tax and some will have to pay less.

Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to give an assurance that he will receive a deputation to discuss this matter in rather closer detail?

Gladly.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the anxiety felt by many, he will publish a monthly report giving details of radioactive fallout and radioactivity of representative samples of milk and vegetables of areas in which observations are being made.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the anxiety felt by many medical officers of health about the growing radioactive contamination of milk and vegetables, he will advise the Medical Research Council to issue a monthly report of the results of the monitoring work in this country.

The level of radio-activity in milk, vegetables and other foodstuffs is now being continuously investigated under the direction of the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. The situation over the country as a whole or in any particular area does not change detectably from month to month and only an annual review of the collected data can give a reliable assessment of the situation. To publish isolated monthly data for particular samples would tend to mislead rather than help. Any significant change in the situation would be reported to me as soon as it became known.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are temporary changes in different areas at varying times, and that for a time, in the case of the Wind-scale disaster, there was a great increase in radioactivity over London? Is he also aware—I am sure he is—that milk and vegetables are especially valuable foods for children, who are most affected by the danger of radioactivity, that parents are really very anxious and that regular information would put them at their ease?

Of course, there are these occasional situations, but I am informed that it would really be much better to stick to what we have done, which is the periodical publication of this data, instead of month by month, which would be misleading and not helpful. On the other hand, I hope that the next report will be published by about the middle of this year.

But surely the Prime Minister cannot deny that there is a definite, steady increase taking place in radioactive contamination by strontium 90 in plants, milk and certain vegetables, and would it not be at least advisable that, even privately, he should circularise in every quarter the medical officers of health so that these can be certain in their own minds of this trend?

I do not think it is anything of this character. It would be better to await the report, which will be published in a month or two.

asked the Prime Minister whether the advice given to him about the insignificance of genetic effects due to fall-out from nuclear explosions relates to the insignificant effect upon any one individual or the insignificant number of individuals affected.

The Medical Research Council stated in its report on "The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations" that the genetic effects of radiation are essentially problems con- cerning the future welfare of the population as a whole. The total amount of radiation received by the population, to which fall-out contributes only a very small fraction, is the genetically significant factor and not the amount received by any one individual except in as much as the latter contributes to the whole.

But does the Prime Minister not agree that the use of the term "insignificant" in relation to genetic hazards is misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that at least two signatories to the Report of the Medical Research Council objected to the term "insignificant" in so far as it was intended to convey that the number of children who will be born deformed is limited, and is insignificant as a proportion of the total number of children?

No, Sir. I think the word "insignificant" is well justified by the facts, which are these: the Gonad dose of radiation attributable to the fallout from nuclear weapon explosions is less than 1 per cent. of the natural background radiation. That is less than 1 per cent. of what we cannot avoid being subject to by being born and living on this earth. It is interesting also to note that medical diagnostic radiology is at least 22 per cent. of the natural background radiation per annum.

Withdraw.

Is the Minister aware that to call these V-bombs clean bombs is hypocritical, and that a bomb which will kill thousands of people and will cause children to be born deformed is not only dirty but devilishly dirty?

I was trying to defend by statistical information the use of the word "insignificant" in connection with the addition made to the total radiation of the world by this particular test explosion. When, as I say, the fallout from all the explosions made by all the countries concerned—of which ours is, of course, a tiny fraction—amounts to only one per cent. of what we cannot help receiving anyway by being alive, I think I am entitled to use the word "insignificant".

Is it not a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seem so frightened of this, should take such great pains to frighten other people outside on such insignificant evidence?

While considering this matter, will the Prime Minister look at the evidence given by Mr. Warren Weaver, Chairman of the United States Committee on the Genetic Effects of Radiation, in which he dealt with this precise point? Mr. Weaver said that 6,000 additional children will be borne deformed to the present generation which, he said, is an insignificant proportion of the total births, but he went on to add, "Six thousand is a lot of babies", and would not the Prime Minister agree with that?

I have not read that report, and I will certainly look it up. If those figures are correct—my own are certainly correct—and one per cent. is the only addition to the natural amount of radiation, I think I am still entitled to say that is insignificant.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that at the Summit Conference he will not insist that a properly supervised agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests will be made contingent upon other agreements.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 1st April, and to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 29th April.

Is the conclusion which the House is to draw from that, therefore, that if we can get a cast-iron agreement for the suspension of tests under proper inspection the Prime Minister will not agree to it unless it is tied to some other agreement?

No, Sir. I do not think any of these deductions should be drawn. What I am hoping to do is to get a summit meeting arranged as rapidly as we can. When we get that, we will negotiate on all these matters.

Has the right hon. Gentleman set his mind against the possibility of a suspension of nuclear tests as a separate issue, with control posts mutually agreed, even if agreement cannot be found upon other questions?

All these questions will certainly be matters of negotiation by such a meeting, but I would certainly not wish to tie my hands before entering such a meeting by any prior statements.

In view of the fact that the Russians have suspended tests, would it not be desirable if the right hon. Gentleman did not close his mind to what he himself has said on several occasions in the House of Commons, that if even some modest approach can be made to a summit solution of these difficulties, he will be in favour of it?

Of course I do not wish to close my mind, but I do not wish to tie my hands; nor, if I may be permitted to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, would I wish to go naked into the conference.

asked the Prime Minister if he will establish, under the chairmanship of a Cabinet Minister, a committee consisting of representatives of the Treasury, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Admiralty and the shipping industry, to consider the problems now confronting British shipping, with particular reference to flags of convenience.

I do not think any new machinery is required. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is in close touch with the General Council of British Shipping. There are already arrangements for consideration between Departments of the problems confronting the British shipping industry and for consultation as necessary with the General Council of British Shipping. I am satisfied that these arrangements are adequate, although the problems are complex.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will reconsider this matter in the light of the undoubted fact that no country in the world is so deeply dependent upon its merchant shipping, both commercially and strategically, as we are? Will he, in view of the tremendous development of the flags of convenience problem, consider whether it would not be wise to set up such a committee as is suggested in this Question, which I am sure would be very welcome to the industry?

I hope my hon. Friend will not misunderstand the character of my reply. It has never been the practice, and I would not like to deviate from it, to refer to any Committee of Ministers in this House or in any public statement, the only exception from long tradition being the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. Because, therefore, I do not wish to make a precise answer to the form of this Question, it does not mean that Ministers do not discuss this problem. It has never been our practice, and I would not like to deviate from what is a very old-standing rule, that no reference is ever made to a Committee of Ministers.

As there may be very sound reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should not create such a committee, could he arrange, perhaps through an inspired Question, to enable the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to make a statement on the Government's view about the future position of the shipping industry?

On this question of flags of convenience and other similar matters, discussions are going on between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the General Council. The General Council has not yet put forward to us its specific proposals. We understand that the Council is considering these proposals and as soon as we have them, we will be very happy to discuss them.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his proposal to Mr. Khrushchev that experts should now be appointed to work out an agreed system of inspection and control of hydrogen bomb tests, he will suggest to Mr. Khrushchev that the same system should be extended to conventional arms as well.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary proposed in the Disarmament Sub-Committee last July that experts should meet for this purpose as well as to study the technical details of other disarmament measures. I repeated this proposal in my letter of 16th January to Mr. Bulganin. The Soviet Government have not responded. Nevertheless, our proposal still stands.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if Russia were sincere in these matters she would stop her cold war of subversion? Would he also agree that his constant questioners on this subject on the other side of the House would be better employed using their influence with Russia, if they have any?

If they would do that, it would be very agreeable.

Can the Prime Minister say why, last year, we withdrew the detailed proposals for the inspection of conventional armaments which we had pressed upon the Russians for twelve years and left ourselves in the extraordinary position that the Russians were proposing much more conventional disarmament and much more inspection than we were?

No, Sir. That is a great travesty of the story of last year. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those men who always thinks his own country wrong.

Withdraw.

While we all realise the strain under which the Prime Minister is working, does he realise that discourteous statements of that kind to an authority on the subject of disarmament such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will impress nobody.

Yes, Sir but I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals put up by the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would remind the right hon. Gentleman——

Withdraw.

Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition. He is entitled to answer it and the House should listen.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals put up by the Western Powers in the Disarmament Conference on behalf of Canada, France and the United States and Great Britain were carried by an overwhelming majority in the Assembly of the United Nations.

If I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, will he tell the House what was in the Russian proposals of 18th March and the Western proposals of 29th August?

Of course, I will answer the Question when it is put down, but I will answer it in its proper perspective.

asked the Prime Minister what progress is being made with the prototype reactor for nuclear-powered merchant shipping.

No reactor is being developed at present specifically for propulsion of merchant shipping. The Atomic Energy Authority is working on a land-based advanced gas-cooled reactor which, while not specifically designed for use in merchant ships, is expected to yield information which will be of value to the Authority and the Admiralty in developing an economic propulsion unit. Surveys of other reactor systems which might be suitable for marine application are continuing.

Are we not in danger of falling behind the United States in the development of atomic-powered merchant shipping? Ought we not to give far more priority to this project than we seem to be doing?

No, Sir. Very good work indeed is going on. If the hon. Member would wish it, I would be very happy to explain to him personally some of this scientific development, which is of a remarkable character.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said during the Navy Estimates debate and in view of the enormous importance of this matter to our marine engineering industry, will my right hon. Friend consider in the near future publishing a statement of how far the Government have got with this problem?

I will certainly consider that, although, as I am sure my hon. Friend would feel, there are some- times disadvantages in publishing too prematurely the precise stage of our advance.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to be in constant radio communication with the President of the United States of America, in view of the fact that our ally is in a state of instant readiness for war.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 15th April.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, under the "instant alert" system in the United States, the President has to be in constant contact with the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Omaha and we have been assured that, even when he is playing golf, Mr. Eisenhower is in constant contact by means of a portable radio? Is it not important—[Interruption.] May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The House should listen to the question in silence.

Is it not important that if the United States is going to war, we should be consulted? In view of that, will the Prime Minister arrange to carry a portable radio set around with him everywhere, including in this House?

The fact that our allies are in a state of readiness is, I would have thought, a source of satisfaction. I am sure that they will carry out their obligations, made to Mr. Attlee's Government, repeated to the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and since renewed to me, both in the spirit and in the letter.

On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? To what extent is an hon. Member allowed to criticise the head of a foreign friendly Power?

From what I could hear of the hon. Lady's question, the only criticism I heard of the eminent gentleman was that he played golf. I cannot myself count that as a derogatory expression.

I was not criticising the President of the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was criticising the Prime Minister for not arranging to be in the same contact with the problem.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the formation of rabbit clearance societies to qualify for the £ for £ grants offered by his Department; and which counties have so far registered such societies.

Three societies, one in Carmarthenshire and two in Kent, have already been registered, and plans to form societies are well advanced in a number of other counties in England and Wales. The initial response to the recent offer of grants has been encouraging in many areas: but I would urge occupiers in all parts of the country to take advantage of these grants and form societies over the next few months so that they are ready to operate in good time for next winter's anti-rabbit campaign.

That seems a satisfactory start. May we take it from what my right hon. Friend has said that both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union are doing their best to facilitate the formation of these societies?

I have no reason to assume that they are not giving the fullest cooperation to the schemes that my Ministry is putting forward.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount and value of food condemned at his Department's food depot situated at Patrick Green, Woodlesford, near Leeds, during the past 12 months.

This depot is used as a clearing house for the routine inspection of old stock. Condemnations have been negligible but my right hon. Friend must adhere to the custom of refusing to give details about our strategic food reserves.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is quite a lot of indignation owing to the wastage of food in that depot? Is it at all possible to prevent such wastage, as I am sure that this House will agree that, when good food goes into a depot, it should be properly attended to, so as to avoid the waste which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has admitted?

I only wish I could give the figures. If I could, people would realise what a small percentage it is. I realise that there is some, of course, but we seek to avoid it as much as we can. I can certainly give the House the assurance that it is a very small figure indeed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average weekly earnings of agricultural workers for the years 1951 and 1957, respectively, and for men, women and young persons, separately.

The latest available figures relate to the twelve months ending 30th September, 1957. The estimated average weekly earnings of hired whole-time regular workers in England and Wales in this period are men, £8 19s. 8d., women, £6 5s. 2d., and youths and girls, £5 3s. 10d. The corresponding figures for the twelve months ending 30th September,1951,are,respectively, £5 19s. 4d., £4 6s. and £3 15s. 7d.

Now that the hon. Gentleman has given the actual money received by agricultural workers, men, women and children, will he tell the House how much each agricultural worker earns?

He earns every penny he gets.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been made, and with what results, on the use of compost from combining municipal waste and sewage sludge as a fertiliser.

Experiments carried out during the war and after at Rothamsted and elsewhere showed that this compost provides a useful organic manure. My Department advocates its use where it is available and suitable.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this question, may I ask him if it would be possible for him to consult the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see how far local authorities should be encouraged to extend this service so that it might be used by agriculturists?

This is a matter primarily for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service gladly give any help they can in that respect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the proceedings of the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea and as to how the decisions taken will affect the British fishing industry.

The matter of primary concern is that the Geneva Conference was unable to reach a decision by the necessary majority on the question of the territorial sea. As stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 28th April, the Government will do everything possible in this situation to safeguard the interests of the British deep-sea fishing industry.

The Conference reached decisions on several other matters affecting the fishing industry. In particular, agreement was reached upon a code of law governing fisheries conservation, representing a balance between the interests of coastal States and those with deep-sea fishing interests; and upon another covering the continental shelf under which the waters above the shelf outside the territorial sea are recognised as being high seas in which there is freedom to fish.

The Conference decided that those matters on which agreement was reached should be incorporated in Conventions which will be open to ratification by Governments.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply and his interest in the fishing industry, may I ask him whether instructions cannot be given to the fishery protection squadron to safeguard our fishing vessels when fishing within legal limits?

As I have told my hon. Friend, Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to protect our fishing industry at this moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Conference ended, it has been reported that Iceland proposes to take unilateral action, and could he state what action he intends to take to preserve the rights of the British trawling fleet?

That is a purely hypothetical question. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said the other day, we have made our position quite clear in this matter.

Does that mean that there will be no attempt to reopen the Conference? What safeguard is there against countries such as Iceland extending their fishing grounds for their own exclusive use?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, it was decided at the end of the Conference to suggest that further consideration could be given by the United Nations to try to resolve the questions on which there was no agreement. In reply to the second part, Her Majesty's Government, as I have said, are doing all they can to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to make available to sheep farmers the knowledge of the Bowen technique in sheep shearing developed in New Zealand.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) on 25th April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not aware of the terms of that reply? Is he further aware that a firm in my constituency has prepared an instructional film and is running a course in the Bowen technique all over the country this summer? If this very helpful bit of private enterprise needs any help from the Government, will he see that it gets it?

I was not aware that my hon. Friend was not aware of the previous reply, but I assure him that the Wool Marketing Board, which is the body concerned, is doing what it can about publicity, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the unit subsidies, expressed per 7 lb., on potatoes for 1955–56, 1956–57 and 1957–58, respectively.

The estimated rates of subsidy per 7 lb. of second early and main crop potatoes used for human consumption from holdings of more than one acre are 0·2d. for the 1955 crop and 2·7d. for the 1956 crop. The comparable figure for the 1957 crop is forecast at 0·1d. These rates include allowances made to the Potato Marketing Board for administrative expenses in operating the guarantee arrangements in Great Britain.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average growers' returns per acre for potatoes for 1955–56, 1956–57 and 1957–58, respectively.

The average grower's return per acre for potatoes is estimated at £115 for the 1955 crop and £89 for the 1956 crop. The forecast for the 1957 crop is £121 per acre.

Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend is still considering the system of price support for potatoes? If he is, can he say when he is likely to come to a conclusion upon it?

Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is considering it. I think reference was made to it in the White Paper on the Price Review this year, and consultations are now going on. I could not give any undertaking about when a decision will be announced.

As this matter has been under review for a considerable time, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary impress upon his right hon. Friend that if he can reach an early decision, he ought to do so?

I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made. We hope to be in a position to announce something by the end of July.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now considered the advice of the Smallholders Advisory Council; and if he will make a statement on the relationship between smallholdings and allotments.

The Smallholdings Advisory Council has considered whether larger allotments might be provided in rural areas for farm workers anxious eventually to become farmers on their own account. Such allotments and part-time smallholdings are, in certain areas, an established part of the social structure and provide a real opportunity of advancement for farm workers. I agree with the Council's view, however, that there is no general case for providing more part-time holdings.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to see that all hay and straw used in packing imported merchandise is destroyed at the port of entry in order to comply with the regulations imposed under the Foot and Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders, 1925.

Importers are not obliged to destroy packing materials at the ports. The Foot and Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders, 1925 and 1926, require hay or straw which has been used for packing purposes to be destroyed if it is not so used again or returned in a crate or box to the sender for further use as packing. Local authorities acting under the Diseases of Animals Acts, enforce the Orders.

Can my right hon. Friend say what protection this is against the importation of foot-and-mouth disease? Is he aware that, if the hay and straw goes from the port, there is no possible chance of stopping it being used, thrown into pig sties, or whatever it may be, and spreading the disease? Will he take steps to see that this is stopped?

Frankly, I do not think that this is one of the sources from which this disease comes. As far as I am aware, no case has been traced to packing materials of this kind, certainly within the last eighteen years. I do not think it is a real source of danger.