asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive further proposals of the University Grants Committee on new university foundations.

I hope to make a statement on this matter shortly.

We are delighted to hear that, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as the estimates of the number of places required at universities are probably lower than many people think are required, the earliest possible decision is needed on these new foundations?

Yes, certainly. I quite agree with the hon. Lady about an early decision, but the detailed proposals reached us only on Friday. I will try to make a statement as quickly as I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the approximate total amounts accruing to the following classes of Surtax payers as a result of the new Surtax relief, namely, Government scientists, scientists employed in industry, business executives directly concerned with export trades, other business executives, teachers, and university staffs.

This information is not available.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know these facts, how does he think that his Budget proposals will encourage the development of scientific achievement and the export trade?

The hon. Gentleman's Question contains a comprehensive list, but information is not available dividing each category from the other. I think that the generality are all affected by my proposals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has further considered the proposal to introduce a decimal currency system; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot at present add anything to the reply which my hon. Friend received on 16th February.

In view of the international character of sterling, in view of the fact that many Commonwealth countries have already made the change, and in view of the fact that it now seems that much opinion in the United Kingdom is also in favour of the change, will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House whether he regards this as a Commonwealth matter and is therefore consulting the other Commonwealth countries? Further, when does he think he will be in a position to make a statement on the subject?

On the Commonwealth aspects, I said in answer to a previous Question that the consequences of South Africa's decision are being observed. We are in touch with both the Australian and New Zealand Governments. I am doing my best to accelerate our consideration of this matter.

Are we then to lose our old friends the ell, the rood and the perch if this proposal is accepted?

That is another matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to support the gilt-edged market when the Trustee Investments Bill comes into effect.

It is a well-established rule not to disclose the intentions of the authorities with respect to future official operations in the gilt-edged market.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend any estimate of the amount of gilt-edged stocks which may be coming on to the market in the next few months as a result of trustee sales? Does he agree that it may be in the region of £300 million? If that is so, is it not probable that there will be a drop in the gilt-edged market of between 5 and 7 points? I appreciate the reasons why we cannot have a declaration of intent from my right hon. and learned Friend, but will he bear this point in mind in his instructions to the Government Broker?

Certainly. I will maintain a close interest in the gilt-edged market. I do not think that the effects will be as great as my hon. Friend suggests.

The Government sales of the steel industry's prior charges had a most distressing effect on the gilt-edged market. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer yet had an opportunity of considering the proposal made by an eminent investment expert which I once asked him across the Floor of the House to consider? The suggestion was that the money which the Government received from the sale of the steel industry's prior charges should be used for the purpose of putting a floor into the gilt-edged market so that there would be no further falls.

That is a rather different issue from the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates will accrue in 1961–62 from Schedule A taxes.

Between £100 million and £115 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost would be of exempting from Schedule A tax all owner-occupied houses up to the net annual value of £65.

About £42 million in a full year. The estimate includes both Surtax at 1961–62 rates and also the cost of an allowance of £65 for houses whose net annual value is over £65.

That figure does not quite give the answer I want. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should break it up a little more. Would it not be better if, instead of encouraging the property-owning plutocracy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did something for the 2¼ million owner-occupiers who will probably have to pay higher mortgage rates to building societies as a result of the new Profits Tax?

I think it is a question of priorities.

Since the Tory Party believes in a property-owning democracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—will my right hon. and learned Friend take the earliest possible opportunity to abolish Schedule A tax altogether?

I am afraid that I have no proposals to that effect to put before the House this year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any further communication about the National Theatre from the newly-elected London County Council; and what reply he has sent.

I have not yet received any communication about the National Theatre from the newly-elected London County Council.

Will the Chancellor undertake to reconsider the question when he does receive a communication from the L.C.C.? Is he not aware that the L.C.C. has publicly announced it as its intention to build the National Theatre? Does he realise that the Government of the day were made to look very foolish in regard to the new Waterloo Bridge, and will he resist the temptation to get into exactly the same position in regard to the National Theatre?

I will certainly try to resist all the temptations that I ought to resist. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the L.C.C. said that that Committee would discuss the matter on 15th May. I think that there is to be a council meeting after that, and I expect to get in touch with the L.C.C. after it has had its council meeting; and, of course, I will consider its representations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much foreign currency he estimates will be lost annually to this country by the recent decision of the United States Government to disallow the sale of British cars on United States bases and the closing of the PX scheme for permitting United States service personnel to acquire British cars on the export quota free of Purchase Tax;

The figure for which my hon. Friend asks might be as high at £1½ million. It would depend of course, whether U.S. Service men continued to buy British cars by other means. On the general question, I have written to my hon. Friend on this matter at some length.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his letter, but does he not think that this loss of currency is a very serious matter? I understand that one Midland manufacturer says that these orders constitute his seventh largest export order. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the interests of those traders in the North and elsewhere who have built up this sort of business? Will he further represent to the American authorities that communities have to live together and that arbitrarily to cease business in this way is a very serious matter from the relations point of view?

I am aware of the considerations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and we are discussing these aspects with the American authorities.

Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the trouble to write to his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard)—at some length, as he says—in view of the general interest there is in this matter, would not the Chancellor circulate a copy of that letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that we can all see it?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the supplementary answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, he will see there a good deal of the contents of the letter.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether or not, if American Service men buy American cars for delivery in this country, they are subject to import duty and Purchase Tax?

Not without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated annual cost of a Press cuttings service to be made available by Her Majesty's Government for the use of Members of Parliament.

The expense of a Press cutting service varies widely according to its scope and nature. Without a closer definition, it is not possible to estimate the annual cost of a service for the use of Members.

Would not this service be invaluable in keeping Members of Parliament well-informed and up to date, and in ensuring that they do not miss vital news items on important issues? Would the Chancellor consider taking advantage of the fact that the News Chronicle's highly-expert library staff and its cuttings service have been kept going?

I am not sure that this is a matter so much for me as for the authorities of the House in the first instance, but I shall certainly draw the attention of the authorities to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Is the Chancellor aware that limited and fragmentary services like this are being maintained in each of the 24 Government Departmental libraries and the library of the Central Office of Information as well as in the House of Commons' library? Would it not be much more effective, and much cheaper, to maintain a central pool for this service, and would he not look at the proposal I made some time ago about the News Chronicle service?

I certainly will look at it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the majority of the Members of this House have received a printed document purporting to contain the oaths taken by the Mau-Mau in Kenya; and whether Her Majesty's Stationery Office have granted permission to any person to publish extracts from the confidential appendix to Command Paper No. 9081, a Report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, 1954, which contained details of Mau-Mau ceremonies.

I understand that a document as described has been circulated to a number of Members. Permission was not sought for the inclusion in the document of extracts from the confidential appendix to Command Paper No. 9081. The authors' claim that the information was obtained from another source is being investigated.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this publication should have a much wider distribution in this country so that, instead of some people raving for the release of Kenyatta, the public should be made aware of what happened in the past?

I think that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies rather than for me.

Is the Chancellor aware that this document is being sent to civic authorities and mayors of towns, but that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jomo Kenyatta was responsible—[Interruption]—for the obscene and indecent oaths contained in the document?

That cannot be a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will the Chancellor make it quite plain that the Government do not condone the circulation of this document?

Why not?

All I am concerned with here as Chancellor of the Exchequer is the question of copyright.

Would not the Chancellor see whether the cost of the operation is not being offset for tax purposes against profits by this organisation? There is far too much of this propaganda and publicity being done—

What is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of?

I am afraid of the Chancellor having to pay the cost of a lot of propaganda which, if people want to circulate it, they should pay for themselves. In view of that, will the Chancellor see whether he is, in fact, paying for this?

I think that this Question deals with copyright, and not with these other matters.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not propose a reduction in investment allowances for general industry during the lifetime of this Parliament.

No, Sir.

As the Chancellor gave a clear assurance a few days ago about investment allowances for shipping—which, I think, the whole House welcomed—and as the present Prime Minister, as his first act as Chancellor of the Exchequer, scrapped investment allowances in 1956, does it not seem extraordinary that the Chancellor gives an assurance in respect of investment allowances for shipping? In view of the importance of investment allowances for general industry, will he not give a similar assurance that he or his successors will maintain those investment allowances at not less than their present value?

I think that the shipping industry has always been treated as a unique industry, even in the circumstances of 1956. As to the general proposition, it will, of course, be my purpose to try to promote investment, but I think that it would be unreasonable for me to be expected to tie my hands as the right hon. Gentleman asks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now the Government's policy to tax advertising.

My hon. Friend will have gathered from my Budget speech that the Answer to his Question is Yes, when the medium used is television.

But is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reference in the Budget speech to the television companies being bitten by the hand that fed them inferred to most of us that the programme companies were to bear the tax themselves, and that this was broadly acceptable in view of the high level of television profits, but that now that it is to be passed on and it becomes a tax on advertising—and on a particular form of advertising—it is less acceptable to many of my hon. Friends?

If my hon. Friend will observe what is happening, I think that he will find that in at least two cases the programme companies propose to bear part of the charge.

Does the Chancellor regard television as another unique industry, and can he tell us why he selected this particular form of advertising for attack?

I think that the industry is unique in the sense that it has a near-monopoly aspect. General taxation of advertising is a very much wider topic, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself had some experience of the difficulties there in his day.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the bulk of the television contractors are passing on the whole of the tax to the advertisers? Is he aware of the very real concern there is that this tax, far from affecting the financial strength of the television contractors will, in fact, considerably weaken the financial position of the lesser advertising media, such as the provincial Press and the weaker sections of the periodical Press?

My hon. Friend is trying to go rather further than it is appropriate to go in Question and Answer. After all, we will have an opportunity to debate the matter during our discussion of the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for Government assistance for the Shakespeare fourth centenary celebrations in 1964.

No proposals for Government assistance for this purpose have been put to me.

Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this fourth centenary deserves celebration by an imaginative, fitting and permanent monument? In view of the importance of these celebrations, and of the high reputation of the British theatre, would he not agree that this would be an appropriate time for him to reconsider his decision about the National Theatre? Would he not think it fitting to reconsider the possibility, at least, of making a substantial contribution towards the building of such a theatre?

I realise the importance and significance of this particular celebration. I have already answered one Question today about the National Theatre and have nothing more to say on that.

Does the Chancellor realise that the best contribution he could make would be to release the £1 million already voted by Parliament?

I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much paraffin was sold for domestic consumption during the period 5th April, 1960, to 5th April, 1961; and what additional revenue is anticipated from the tax on paraffin during the present financial year.

Just over a million tons and about £3 million.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a detailed statement on the regulations governing the imports of various kinds of oil to Great Britain for industrial purposes, indicating the country from which each comes and the amounts imported during each of the last five years.

Oil and oil products for all purposes are subject to import licensing regulations only when imported from the countries of the Eastern Area. With permission, I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these countries and the amounts of oil of kinds which might be used for industrial purposes imported from each during the last five years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade who serves on the Board of Trade Committee

Does not the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between oil from British Commonwealth sources, from British colonial sources and from completely foreign sources? If so, on what principle does he act?

For the purpose of answering this Question, I was dealing with import licensing arrangements, and I said that only oil from the Eastern area has to be specially licensed.

The inquiry into resale price maintenance is being carried out by officials. They have been in touch with various consumer organisations.

But is not my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable worry in the country that the consumers' point of view will not be put forward from all angles? May we have an assurance that the consumers' angle and not only the manufacturers' angle is being thoroughly investigated?

It is open to consumers and consumers' organisations to put their views to my right hon. Friend. He has given instructions that all views put to him should be considered in the course of the inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the growing practice of contracting out of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, by offering a form of guarantee is in the interests of purchasers generally; and what consideration he has given to this matter.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the views which have been expressed on this subject, but as there are differences of opinion on the effect of these guarantees and on their practical consequences for the consumer, he proposes to await the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection before reaching a conclusion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Nos. 10 and 18 of the Shoppers' Guide there has been an article on this matter and a facsimile of the form of guarantee of one car manufacturer? Is he further aware that in the case of the car manufacturer people taking over a car have been permitted to cut out part of the guarantee which prevents them under the Sale of Goods Act having rights and still sign the guarantee for effect? Does not this show that guarantees in respect of different merchandise are taking from the public their rights under the Sale of Goods Act? Is there not anything that my hon. Friend can do to protect the public?

I was aware of what my hon. Friend said in the first part of her supplementary question, but I still think that it would be better to wait for the findings of the Committee on Consumer Protection rather than take action in the meantime.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation requiring the compulsory registration of hire purchase agreements relating to motor cars.

As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on 30th March, he understands that the great bulk of hire-purchase transactions are already registered on a voluntary basis, but he is studying the situation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing number of cases where the purchaser buys a car, generally a second-hand car, in good faith, later finds that it is owned by a hire-purchase company and that the vendor, who by then may have disappeared, had no title to it? A shocking example of this was brought to my attention only yesterday. Is it the Government's intention to provide facilities for a Hire of Motor Vehicles Bill? If not, what do they intend to do to try to stop this growing racket?

As I have said, this is one of the matters that my right hon. Friend is studying. It is also being studied by the Committee on Consumer Protection. I am informed that 99·9 per cent. of hire-purchase transactions in vehicles are registered with Hire Purchase Information Limited.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what success he has had in bringing new industry to the North-East since the introduction of the Local Employment Act.

Since the Act came into force we know of nine new firms which have decided to come into the area. The Act also, of course, benefits firms already in the area who wish to expand. There are about 10,000 new jobs in prospect in the development districts in the North-East.

My hon. Friend says that jobs are "in prospect". How soon does he mean by that—during the current year, in the next 12 months, or what?

No; they are in prospect. These are the estimates of the amount of employment that firms setting up or expanding in the area expect to attain. It is not possible to say when they will attain it.

Make what you like of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the discriminatory effect upon small firms of the £2,000 minimum value limit to the duty free import of machinery, where similar machinery is not procurable in the United Kingdom, he will now take steps to abolish this minimum value limit.

No, Sir. The £2,000 limit was introduced on the advice of the Wilson Smith Committee as a condition of resuming the duty-free licensing of machinery in 1954. The Committee gave thorough consideration to the effect of the limit on smaller firms, but concluded that it was both essential and reasonable. This advice is still valid.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, where new machinery can be obtained only from abroad, this imposition of a substantial duty on machinery under £2,000 in value is very unfair to smaller firms and indirectly adversely affects their ability to compete in the export market? Surely the Government should encourage firms to acquire the most up-to-date modern plant and machinery and not to discourage them in this way.

The purpose of the duty, of course, is to provide protection for British manufacturers of machinery. A limit is necessary because, if there were no limit, we would be overwhelmed with applications for relief.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it does not matter how much he is overwhelmed provided British industry is made efficient? That is the main consideration.

Some hon. Members complain about swollen bureaucracies. We have to watch that as well.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is machinery which can be obtained only from abroad? It is not procurable in this country.

I am aware of the point.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for regulating the solicitation of money deposits by companies from members of the public by advertisement and circulars.

My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

With great respect to my hon. Friend, that is a most disappointing reply. Is he aware that a specific promise was made in the House just over 12 months ago that we should definitely have legislation in the current Session of Parliament? The need for it has been obvious for much longer than that. It is probably true to say that upwards of £1 million at the very least must have been lost by small investors because there has not been protective legislation. Can my hon. Friend give us a firm indication when we may now expect it?

With his wide knowledge of these things, my hon. Friend will realise that this is a very complicated matter. I assure him that we are getting on with this as quickly as we can.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider his decision not to include formula junior cars in his scheme for the remission of Purchase Tax on racing cars during the financial year 1961–62.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since I first raised this matter with him it has taken just over a year for his Department to reach a negative conclusion? Is he further aware that the various manufacturers of these vehicles have to go on producing in kit form so as to try to avoid Purchase Tax and that this is causing considerable inconvenience both to the manufacturers and to the buyers? Will he not in all conscience look at the matter again?

My right hon. Friend gave very careful consideration to this matter, which is part of the reason for the lapse in time, but he sees no reason to double the financial provisions so as to include junior formula cars which have been racing successfully for some time without the benefit of this concession.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the closure of cinemas in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend regrets that the statement given in Answer to the Question by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 11th April inadvertently included one cinema closed in Flintshire in 1959. The number closed for that year should thus be 63 and the total of closures for the six years 168. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the opportunity to correct this.

I am grateful to the Minister for his apology, and on behalf of the people of Wales and, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who cannot be here today, also on behalf of the people of Scotland, I accept the apology.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the existing anti-dumping procedures in view of the failure of his Department to prevent the recent dumping of eggs from Poland and Roumania.

No, Sir. I am writing to my hon. Friend explaining how our antidumping legislation operates.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reply will give a great deal of pleasure to egg producers throughout Roumania, who will be able to repeat next year the same dumping they have got away with this year? Is he also aware that egg producers—and, indeed, other food producers—throughout this country have completely lost confidence in the protection provided by the existing antidumping legislation?

No. I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are shared by the country as widely as he thinks. As regards the future. I ask him to await the receipt of my letter.

Has my right hon. Friend heard of a saying which has been current for some time about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Again and again we are told that this antidumping machinery is in existence and how efficient it is, but it is always applied too late. It is applied so late to surplus products from Poland, for example, that producers complain with great justification that it is wholly ineffective.

The producers made an application, which was dealt with within eight days, which shows that their application was speedily considered. In considering these applications, however, we have to take account of several factors, not only whether dumping is taking place, but whether it is causing or is likely to cause material injury. In this case, we did not think that material injury was likely to be caused, because dumping was already diminishing.

To satisfy his hon. Friends, could not the right hon. Gentleman approach his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether he could make representations to Poland and Roumania to induce them to double the price of their eggs next time?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for trade negotiations with Poland and Roumania.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of foreign carrots imported into this country during the last period of three months of which he has particulars; what was the price per ton; and how this tonnage and price compares with a similar period in 1960 for imported carrots.

Imports of fresh or chilled carrots from all sources during the first three months of 1961 were 2,178 tons valued at £64 per ton, compared with 2,406 tons valued at £67 per ton during a comparable period last year.

Is the Minister aware that while this large amount of carrots was being imported farmers in my constituency in Norfolk were having to plough back carrots into the land because there was no sale for them? Is this not a stupid situation? Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the situation carefully, because this is an expensive crop to grow and if this sort of thing is allowed to expand too much it can cause grave financial loss to farmers and could lead to unemployment among farm workers?

We have been watching the progress of imports. They are less this year than for the comparable period last year, although we appreciate that because there was an exceptionally heavy crop in 1960 there is a surplus of home-produced carrots.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state how many approved applications under the Cotton Finishing Reorganisation Scheme Orders have been made direct to the Cotton Board; how many have been made through realisation companies; what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the closing down and scrapping of production units in the finishing sections; and what percentages will be met by the Exchequer and by statutory levy on the industry, respectively.

Forty-seven approved applications were submitted through Realisation Companies and sixteen direct to the Cotton Board. The Exchequer contribution is expected to be rather less than £2 million. The Government will pay two-thirds of the cost of compensation for closing down units in accordance with the Scheme. The balance will be provided by levy on the industry which will also take account of other costs of the operation, including the activities of the Realisation Companies. The total amount to be raised by levy will not be known until the Realisation Companies have completed the disposal of the properties acquired by them under the Schemes.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, according to the statement made by a prominent person in the finishing section, the industry will have to raise two-thirds of the cost of scrapping and the Government contribution will be one-third? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this means that the average prices paid have been twice the figures set out in the formula established in the Order? Does not this lead one to believe that it may have been the effective and efficient competition that has been bought out rather than redundant plant?

The terms of the scheme are quite clear. The Government's contribution is two-thirds, related to the standard terms of compensation laid down in the Order. The realisation companies were allowed to pay such prices as they thought fit. We shall have to wait to see how the proportion works out. It is not possible to forecast at present.

Can we be assured that this House will be informed of the amount that is being raised from the industry by the statutory levy authorised by this House? If it is twice the amount of the formula laid down in the Order, the House certainly should be advised of the fact.

I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said. The provision for the levy to be made has already been provided for in the Order and it can now be made by the industry itself. If the hon. Member wishes to know the figure, I shall willingly try to ascertain whether it would be proper for me to reveal it to the House or whether it would be better for the industry itself to make it known.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in providing new industries in South Caernarvonshire.

Financial assistance under the Local Employment Act has been offered to a small project in this area, and three other applications are under consideration. We shall continue to encourage industrialists to go to South Caernarvonshire.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the area continues to have one of the highest unemployment percentages in the whole country and that so far his Department has not been able to assist in the least? Is he not further aware that the view of those most concerned with the problem locally, including leaders of both sides of industry and the local authorities, is that this is especially the kind of area which could be most effectively helped by the introduction of one or more advance factories?

I am aware of the hon. Member's view on the last point. I am also aware that unemployment in the area has fallen considerably lately and is now standing at 4·4 per cent., which represents a very big reduction from what it was.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that any improvement in the situation to which he may refer is due entirely to seasonal factors and that the fundamental and longstanding problem still remains to be solved?

I am aware that there is a fundamental and long-standing problem. We are doing our best to meet it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for British first and supporting programme films, respectively, the average quota achievement of the cinemas in the third, national, circuit; and how many cinemas in this circuit defaulted.

Cinemas which normally take the National Release are not required to inform the Board of Trade of this fact. Consequently, figures of the average quota achievement and the number of quota defaults of these cinemas are not available. It is known, however, that so far as cinemas controlled by the Rank Organisation are concerned, none of them, including those in the national circuit, failed to achieve the prescribed quotas in the year ended 30th September last.

Is the hon. Gentleman investigating the situation, especially with a view to trying to get the figures? Is he aware of the complaints of producers that the third circuit is not independent of A.B.C. and Rank, as it should be, and that, therefore, it is not making a contribution towards stimulating British film production? If the hon. Gentleman does not have the figures, we are unable to judge whether that is so. Will he, therefore, consult the exhibitors to see whether these figures can be produced in order to compare them with the A.B.C. and Rank circuits?

The position regarding the independent cinemas that belong to the so-called third circuit is that this is simply a normal business arrangement as to whether they belong to it. They are not obliged to report to us. I will look into what the hon. Member has said to see whether it is possible to get the figures, but there is no statutory obligation on the members of the third circuit to report the fact that they are members.

I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he will not make it an obligation. The whole purpose of the circuit is to try to have three opportunities for producers to get their films shown on a basis that will return their costs of production. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can get the figures for circuit showings for the third circuit, we are unable to judge whether it is having this effect compared with A.B.C. and Rank.

I have taken note of what the hon. Member has said and will consider it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by his Department to attract industrial undertakings to occupy the industrial estate situated at Kilwinning, in the constituency of Central Ayrshire.

Kilwinning is a development district in which the facilities of the Local Employment Act are available. The Board of Trade continues in its efforts to encourage industrial development there.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a rather shocking reply? Is he aware that there is still only one small factory on that estate? Is he further aware that on 13th March, 1952, the then President of the Board of Trade informed me in reply to a Question that the rest of the estate was being held in reserve for future development? Can the hon. Gentleman now give an assurance to the Ayr County Council and to Kilwinning Town Council that real action will be taken by his Department to attract industrial undertakings to the site?

The site is still available and efforts are being made to attract industry to it. It should also be remembered, however, that Kilwinning is only three miles from Irvine and that it is to that place that industry is at present being attracted and where over 1,600 jobs are in prospect.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will authorise the Atomic Energy Authority to negotiate to take over the Hawker Siddeley Nuclear Research Station at Langley, Buckinghamshire, in view of the announcement that it is to be closed down.

No, Sir, my noble Friend is advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that they do not need this establishment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the best-staffed and best-equipped research stations for this purpose in the country? Is he also aware that what is happening at Langley is happening at research stations very widely over industry, and is it not desirable that our national authority should take some responsibility in this constructive field?

I do not think that we can expect the Atomic Energy Authority to take over work which it does not regard as being economically justifiable, and in taking work which it is already doing in a number of fields.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this very important British firm has played a leading part in the production of small reactors, like Jason? Who is now to do research in this field? Are we now to drift and do nothing?

The Atomic Energy Authority is studying the organic moderated reactor and is keeping in touch with developments abroad. I also understand that another British firm is studying the organic moderated reactor.

I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what proportion of Government-financed industrial research and development is at present being carried out in Scotland.

In 1958–59, the latest period for which such figures are available, the total expenditure by Government on research and development carried out by private industry in the United Kingdom was £154 million of which about 90 per cent. was for defence. It is not possible to separate the proportion carried out in Scotland, as a number of firms operate on both sides of the border; but I estimate that about 5 per cent. of this expenditure relates to Scotland. As regards the D.S.I.R., for which my noble Friend is responsible, expenditure in Scotland in 1959–60 was £960,000, or 12 per cent. of the Department's total expenditure on research establishments and in grant aid to co-operative industrial research associations.

Is not this Answer a revelation of the shocking state of private industry in Scotland in relation to science? What are the Government doing to try to encourage private industry to make much greater use of science and also to place more development orders in Scotland?

With regard to making science more popular amongst Scottish industrialists, part of the trouble is undoubtedly due to the fact that the proportion of traditional industry in Scotland is very high. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for which my noble Friend is responsible, is working very hard on this problem. It is one in which all hon. Members could help when talking to industrialists in their own constituencies.

Is not this state of affairs in Scotland really shocking, and is it not time that more money was spent on research for peaceful uses as applied to industry?

I agree that private industry could spend to greater advantage a great deal more money upon research and development, but if one refers to Government expenditure it is, I think, noteworthy that the population of Scotland is 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom whereas the D.I.S.R. expenditure in Scotland in the services to which I have referred is no less than 12 per cent. of its total expenditure.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement on present plans for Great Britain's contribution to a space research programme.

I apologise for the length of this reply.

Great Britain's present programme for space research is comprised of five main elements. There is the programme of scientific experiments using sounding rockets. Further experiments will be made in satellites to be launched by the United States, with whom we are also collaborating in the testing of communications using satellites.

Thirdly, we are taking an active part in the Preparatory Commission recently set up to plan a European organisation for co-operation in scientific research in space. We and the French Government have also proposed to other European Governments a co-operative programme for the development of satellite launchers, beginning with one based on Blue Streak to be fired from the joint United Kingdom-Australia range at Woomera. Finally we are doing a great deal of satellite tracking and data analysis work, including the operation of one of the three World Data Centres, which act as international clearing houses for space research information.

All these activities reflect the great importance which Her Majesty's Government attaches to international co-operation in space research and our future plans will, therefore, be considerably affected by the results of the discussions which are taking place with other countries with regard to the third and fourth elements of our programme which I have enumerated.

While there is an improvement in the sense that the Government are now giving a little more detail of what they are trying to do, could not the Government really hasten these discussions? Again, are we in consultation with the Commonwealth Governments in relation to a space programme, specifically Australia, and could he give us more information in that direction?

We are in very close contact with both the Australian and Canadian Governments. With regard to the European discussions on the Blue Streak project, those discussions are going forward and we hope that they will reach an early and acceptable conclusion.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his lengthy verbiage in reply to the Question constitutes a complete smoke-screen and that the discouragement emanating from his Department to British participation in a space research programme is leading already to an exodus of the finest brains of this country to the United States and Canada? Will he emphasise to his leader that the failure to participate, with or without international support, in a British Commonwealth space research programme can lead only to disaster?

With regard to the first two points made by my hon. Friend, I would very strongly disagree with what he said. With regard to his last remark, there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday, which, I think, will cover the point.

asked the Minister of Works what are the buildings under his control in Liverpool; which of them are supplied with one and two flagpoles, respectively; and which of them flew the Union Jack or St. George's flag, or both, on St. George's Day, 23rd April 1961.

There are in Liverpool, 59 buildings for which I am responsible. Four have a single flagpole and flew the Union Jack on St. George's Day and one has two flagpoles and flew the St. George's flag in addition.

Does my noble Friend recollect that in reply to my earlier Questions he assured me that all buildings under his control would be supplied with two flagpoles so that they could fly both the Union Jack and the St. George's flag? Is he aware that there was a disgraceful display in Liverpool on 23rd April, and will he see that this matter is remedied in future?

I do not recollect that I gave that undertaking, because I have so many buildings to cater for, but I will certainly check my words and get in touch with my hon. Friend. I might remind my hon. Friend of the details of the Union Jack where St. George's cross may be seen nestling in the shadow of St. Andrew's.

asked the Minister of Works when it is proposed to remove the Army camp buildings from Richmond Park.

Eight huts were removed in 1959 and a further 37 will be removed this year. The camp is due to be vacated completely by the spring of 1963, when the remaining buildings will he removed.

Will the noble Lord appreciate that that reply will give a great deal of satisfaction to many Londoners apart from those who live in the vicinity of Richmond Park and who value its splendid amenities?