asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately how many Yemenis are now resident in Aden Colony: what is the annual influx of Yemenis into the Colony; how many Yemenis are out-patients at Aden hospitals or clinics and how many are inpatients; the number respectively of Yemeni and non-Yemeni young women who are Aden hospital nurses or student nurses; and whether Yemenis are permitted to settle in the Protectorates.

Approximately 80,000. The numbers coming in and going out annually are unknown, since there is no immigration control. No statistics are kept of outpatients by nationality. It is estimated that approximately 30 per cent. of inpatients are Yemenis. There are no Yemeni nurses or student nurses. Non-Yemeni female nursing staff totals 201. The answer to the final point is "Yes". I apologise for the portmanteau method of reply, but it was a portmanteau Question.

In view of the shortage of nurses and the large number of Yemenis who take advantage of hospital service in Aden, has anything been done to suggest to the Crown Prince or the Imam that more women in that area might be trained at Aden hospitals? Can the hon. Gentleman also say what steps are being taken to secure more Adenese women for this purpose?

I should like to look into that. At the moment the nursing staff tends to be male rather than female. This is because of local conditions. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Can the Minister tell us whether there is a sufficient number of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis in Aden? Does he remember that about ten years ago there was a great improvement both in the scope for treating the disease and in the quality of treatment? Has this improvement been maintained?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I shall be happy to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will give the number of cases of paracholera reported in North Borneo in the first three months of 1962, and the number of people who have died from this disease in the same period;

There were 39 confirmed cases and five deaths. A further 89 deaths were probably due to paracholera. Two hundred and forty-seven thousand people were inoculated.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the medical authorities in Borneo are to be congratulated on the way in which this outbreak is being contained, and can he tell the House whether they will be represented at the talks which are to take place shortly on this subject in Manila at the instigation of the World Health Organisation?

I certainly re-echo my hon. Friend's remarks about the efficiency of this system. Of course, there will, we hope, be booster doses over the next six months to make certain that as far as possible this epidemic will continue to be contained. As far as the Manila Conference is concerned, I will certainly bear it in mind and will write to my on. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the basis and scale of compensation for those affected by the impending dissolution of the West Indies Federation have been modified in any way; and what are the categories of recipients.

The matter is still under discussion and I have no further statement to make at this stage.

In view of the heartburning and misunderstanding which there have been on this matter, is progress being made towards a mutually satisfactory settlement?

Yes, I am fairly confident of the outcome.

asked the Minister of Works when the National Library building will be available for use.

The plans for a new building for the British Museum Library are not sufficiently far advanced for any date to be given.

Does the right bon. Gentleman realise that this building will provide room for books which presently are housed in the British Museum at the expense of some of our greatest masterpieces which cannot be shown to the public because of lack of viewing space in the museum? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of getting on more quickly with the provision of space for these books which are now in the museum?

Yes, indeed. No time has been lost, but this is bound to be rather a long job.

When the right hon. Gentleman gives a depressing answer like that, can he define the length of "long"?

I cannot, but I hope soon to be in a position to announce the appointment of an architect.

asked the Minister of Works what is the cost of maintaining the barricades on the Horse Guards Parade; and what is the cost of maintaining a permanent attendant to ensure that only those so privileged may use the Horse Guards Parade as a free car park.

The annual cost of the barriers is about £80 and the wages of the staff £1,440.

As it is wrong that a public place like this should be fenced for the benefit of a few, will my right hon. Friend look into this whole question again, if to do nothing else than to save my continuing putting down Questions about it?

My hon. Friend is not accurate in saying that this is a public place. It is part of a Royal Park. On the question of expenditure, as I have pointed out to my hon. Friend before, what one is trying to do, and what one has to weigh in the balance, is to save the surface.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what royal authority this particular place is preserved for a privileged few when the great majority of people need it? Considering the need for parking space in London, is not the argument about preserving this surface by not having cars parked there fatuous?

No it is not fatuous, because if Horse Guards Parade were thrown open to public parking all the time it would certainly be impossible to preserve the same type of surface. We would have to go to the bard macadamised type of surface.

asked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to prevent the formation of standing stones above the bridge at Bernera, Isle of Lewis, being lost through the erosion of the supporting cliff.

No, Sir. There are many standing stones in Scotland and these particular stones have not been listed under the Ancient Monuments Acts as monuments whose preservation is of national importance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling that these stones should have been listed as such a monument? Is the Minister aware that they overlook one of the most beautiful seascapes in the Western Isles, and are of considerable archaeological and tourist interest to people who visit the islands? Will he reconsider at least trying to save what can be saved before they go into the sea?

It is the archaeological quality of the stones that is the point here. The expert advice is as I have quoted it to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not prepared to go against that.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps are now being taken to overcome any technical or other difficulties affecting the provision of television in Barra, the Uists area and Harris in the Western Isles.

The B.B.C. says that it cannot plan further stations for the Western Isles until the stations my right hon. Friend has already authorised for Lewis and Skye are working and their effective range can be established. The B.B.C. hopes to open these stations by the middle of 1964.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the question is really whether the Government will try now to eliminate as far as possible technical and other snags which will face the B.B.C. and others concerned when they get to these new phases of development? Will the Government try now to short-circuit—if that is the right word to use here—as far as possible the delays which arose in earlier phases in the Western Isles and Highlands?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing that. Since he raised this matter in the recent debate I have looked into it, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this question is uppermost in our planning.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has now received the evidence he sought from the professional bodies concerned in South Wales concerning the operation of the current leasehold laws; and whether he will make a statement.

I have received reports from three out of the four bodies consulted, and I hope to have the fourth very shortly. I intend to publish a summary of the four reports as quickly as I can.

Does this mean that we can look forward to an early decision by the Minister to set free owner-occupiers who are at present being held to ransom by ground landlords? Is the Minister aware that there is a growing impatience in Wales with the length of time that he is taking to collect his evidence? He has already had about six months in which to collect it.

It means, as I have said, that the report of the four experts, or rather the report on their reports, will be published, and thereafter the Government will reach a decision.

Can the Minister indicate to owner-occupiers how long they are likely to have to wait, because important decisions have to be taken by them whether to renew leases under blackmail terms or not? How long will they have to wait before the Government make it clear whether they are going to do something or not?

I cannot add to the Answer that I have given.

Is not the Minister aware that this matter has been bandied across the Floor of the House for many years? In the last four or five years many promises have been given by right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. In view of the urgency of this question, especially in the older industrial parts of South Wales, will the right hon. Gentlemen do all that he can to expedite a final statement on the position?

In due course a statement of the Government's conclusion will be made. In the meantime I am informing the House of the impending publication of the experts' report.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many improvement grants for installing bathrooms and other amenities have been made in the last twelve months; of this total, how many were for owner-occupied houses and how many for those owned by private landlords; and how many were made since landlords were allowed to increase their rents by a further 4½ per cent. of their share of the cost, on 25th November, 1961.

120,965 grants of all kinds were approved in the twelve months ending 31st March, 1962. 58,196 of these were for owner-occupied dwellings, 24,687 for privately rented dwellings. Between 1st December, 1961, and 31st March, 1962, 31,342 grants of all kinds were approved, of which 12,937 were for owner-occupied and 7,073 for privately rented dwellings.

Is not that a shocking record of failure? Is not the Minister now admitting that only 7,000 landlords have bothered to take advantage of these new and increasingly generous grants? Is he aware that because of this many local authorities are convinced that only compulsory measures will force the landlords to take advantage of the extremely generous Government grants—as opposed to owner-occupiers, who are sensibly making use of them?

As the hon. Member will appreciate, the 7,000 figure refers to a four months' period. I am not satisfied with the position, but it is some comfort to know that in the last four months the ratio of grants in respect of landlords' property to privately owned property has risen from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. I do not pretend to be satisfied with the position, and I am considering other ways of securing a greater number of improvements and more conversions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what other ways he is considering? This problem has existed for several years, and it is essential that landlords should improve their properties if these houses are to be preserved and prevented from becoming slums.

One of the other ways I am considering is to advise local authorities to take selected areas and, through a concerted campaign, to seek to secure that the necessary improvements are carried out. It is no use speaking of compulsion, when many tenants do not wish to give up, say, a room for a bathroom, or do not wish to pay the additional rent. The resistances are not all on one side.

Persuasion and publicity in a concentrated form may be useful, but experience has shown that something more is needed. Although we had 11,000 people visiting three houses in Salford in a period of three weeks, only seven landlords in the whole city decided to take advantage of it.

The hon. Member must not forget the measure of success that has been achieved in the increase from 30,000 to 120,000 over the last three years. But I do not pretend to be satisfied with the number of improvements and conversions, bearing in mind the large mass of older property which exists.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the cost to a local authority of borrowing £100,000 and repaying it over a 60-year period at the current interest rates for each of the years from 1951 to 1961.

I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Minister confirm or deny that on average the figures have gone up 300 to 400 per cent.? If that is so, is it not due entirely to Government policy that interest rates have risen and, because of this, local authority rates have risen, as has the cost of administering local authority services and the cost of houses? All this is contrary to the Government's promises and pledges and the desire of the Government to keep down the cost of living. Can the Minister say what he will do to reduce interest rates and help ordinary people?

The rise in interest rates has been necessary to keep the economy on an even keel, and local authorities cannot be insulated from that increase.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the economy had not been on an even keel, and that over the last few months and years we have had one economic crisis after another? The Government have admitted that, and yet we have these high interest rates which they introduced. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that with these high interest rates we have an economic crisis, which does not match up with what he just said?

I would not dare to compete with the hon. Gentleman in his consideration of economic factors, but the Government's policy has been clear, and this is consistent with it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the continued repetition of these parrot phrases about Government policy has created a situation in which it is becoming more and more impossible for local authorities to do their work, and is steadily reducing the number of people who can either own their own houses or hope to get a house at a reasonable rent?

The hon. Gentleman's contentions are not in general supported by the facts, as will emerge in tomorrow's debate.

Why does not the Minister openly admit that this policy of high interest rates has more than doubled the rent of new council houses and halved the number being built since 1951, and will he stop using local authorities as scapegoats for the Government's housing policy?

Long-term interest rates are necessarily high when there is a famine of capital. That has been and is the position, and this is consistent with the Government's economic policy, which is bearing fruit.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for each of the last five years, the ratio of educational expenditure in general, and expenditure on educational building in particular, to gross national product

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures of public educational expenditure on capital and current account and the proportion which the total bears to gross national product for the five years to 1960–61.

Have we not plenty of time to hear these figures? Will the Economic Secretary at any rate say what increased investment in education, out of the total national wealth, these figures show over the five-year period? Is the Treasury aware that education authorities, including university authorities, are now extremely fed-up, to say the least, with the famine of capital which, according to the Minister of Housing, the Government have created?

I must ask the hon. Member to examine the figures which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can tell him that in absolute terms public expenditure on education has risen by over 40 per cent. during the five years in question, and the proportion of the gross national product devoted to education has risen by about 17 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the talks between Ministers and British Museum trustees, which the Prime Minister has already announced, will take place.

I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Islington. East (Mr. Fletcher) on 17th April.

In view of that answer, why was the Question transferred from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member, who cannot answer it? Can he tell us whether the Government to which he belongs are really interested in the serious problems that face the British Museum at present? What are they doing to bring the great paintings, which are presently stored in the vaults of the Museum, into public view? If they are interested, why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended only one statutory meeting in the last five years? The Home Secretary is not in much better case. Why do not more of the 18 members attend the statutory meetings of the Museum in order to help it in its present difficulties?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works has attended 75 per cent. of the meetings. As for the meetings referred to in the Question asked on 17th April by the hon. Member, I find that Ministers have been present at six out of the thirteen meetings there referred to. I can assure the hon. Member that we have all these matters very much in mind and, as he will know from the answer previously given, talks have already taken place between Ministers and the trustees on a number of points. I hope that further talks, including talks on the all-important question of the constitution of the British Museum, will take place before long.

Is the hon. Member aware that it is now a year since the Prime Minister made the promise to which I referred in the Question? During that year nothing has been done. Can the Minister tell us why?

A number of complications are involved. I am sure that the hon. Member, with his experience of the British Museum—and I know that he has been interested in it for many years—will appreciate that they are serious ones and require the most careful attention. There is one other point which is relevant. We thought it right to allow time for the present Archbishop of Canterbury, who takes precedence among the principal trustees, to familiarise himself with Museum matters so that he could form his own views.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Hallmarking.

While my right hon. Friend accepts that the existing hallmarking statutes should be replaced by new legislation, he cannot yet say when it will be possible to do so. He is considering, in the light of the Departmental Committee's Report, what form such legislation might take.

As it is now more than three years since the Departmental Committee reported and made its recommendations, is it not about time the Government got down to it and decided which of the recommendations they intend to implement, and when?

The fact is that the law was described as archaic and confused. It is the accretion of centuries, and it takes some time to examine these matters.

Not more than three years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now reached a decision Whether to return to the Government of Cyprus Mr. A. Zacharia and MR. E. Arestidou in the exercise of the discretion granted to him by Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

Yes, Sir. After full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I have decided that these men should not be returned to, Cyprus and arrangements have been made for them to be released. The Cyprus Government have been informed accordingly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that highly satisfactory reply, but will he remember that these men have been held in prison, in peril of their lives, for about nine months? Will he now consider whether the 1881 Fugitive Offenders Act should be amended, or consider whether, in cases which involve some element of political asylum, it might be possible for him to intervene at a somewhat earlier stage?

I am bound by the terms of this Act. When so serious a case as this comes up one naturally has a desire to examine the Statute in question, but I can give the hon. Member no specific undertaking at present, beyond saying that I will keep the matter under review.

Surely something should be done in a case like this to make things a little more expeditious. However much one may assume against these men—indeed, assuming everything against them—they were entitled to our protection, since they were our war criminals.

Yes. I will add that pertinent question to the matters which I will review.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) on his speech. He is a distinguished officer in an important union, and it is only natural that he should introduce a new Clause affecting the welfare of workers in our fishing ports. He moved a similar new Clause in Committee and received certain assurances from the Minister. As I have said, the new Clause affects the welfare of men in all our fishing ports, and although he has a black eye I am sure that all his constituents wish him well in his endeavours to write this provision into the Bill.

"Port authorities may, after consultation with the Minister, make arrangements for the establishment of joint committeees consisting of representatives of trawler owners, fish merchants and trade unions …"

There is no difference between the two sides of the House about the worthiness of the sentiment which underlies the new Clause. Fishing is an arduous and exacting business, and we would all wish to see proper welfare facilities provided for those who earn their livings from the industry. But J do not think—and I hope that I shall be able to carry the hon. and galiant Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) with me on this—that the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill would get us any further.

I detected a slight lack of urgency in the Minister's speech, which I put down partly to the fact—I do not say this offensively—that his visits to the fishing ports have been brief, and, as far as first-hand knowledge is concerned, took place in the middle of the summer. Like Hull, Grimsby was flattered when he paid it a visit last August. It is true that the mayor, whom he omitted to visit, was less flattered, but we are glad that he saw the port, on a fine summer's day.

The Commission owns the land, but up to now it has not been willing to give up land for welfare schemes.

In that case the position in Hull is different from that in Grimsby.

The Minister has made some sympathetic noises, largely echoing the sympathetic noises made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. The Minister was not present then, but he has been similarly briefed on this occasion. He gives us very little satisfaction. Men who work at the fish docks cannot get themselves changed and dried merely with the aid of words of sympathy. The Minister has said that this Clause does not provide the right way to achieve what he regards as a desirable result. But he does not tell us what is the right way.

". . vigorous and enlightened leadership; and the fishing ports seem to us to be suffering from a lack of such leadership."

I wish to point out to my hon. Friend that the fishermen at Hull have no desire to be registered with the Dock Labour Board.

That is as may be. I was referring to the fact that the Minister had quoted, in support of his argument, that the Dock Labour Board catered adequately for registered workers. Knowing that, I should like to see the decasualisation and the registration of dock workers at Hull and elsewhere so that they might benefit from the very good organisation specified by the Dock Labour Board.

I regret that I was not able to be in the Chamber in time to hear all the comments of my right hon. Friend on the proposed new Clause. I wish to support the Clause and the case which has been submitted by hon. Members opposite so far as I have heard it. I do so with some personal knowledge of the conditions in a fishing port, having worked at Grimsby for about two years with fishermen and fish lumpers at the docks.

Is the hon. Member aware that at Aberdeen and Milford Haven registration schemes are being successfully carried out?

In Grimsby, there is a scheme and registration is operated through the Trawler Owners' Association. This enables crews to be found easily. There is a record of names and addresses of men. It is a method of facilitating their signing on with certain trawlers. The problem is not finding a job for a fisherman, but finding a fisherman to go to sea. I repeat that I support the proposal. The new Clause may not necessarily contain the right words, or be in the right form, but I think that the idea behind it is worthy of support.

I wish to support the Clause for the reasons given in the speeches of my hon. Friends. I commend to hon. Members the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). It contained a great deal of sense and was in remarkable contrast to the speech of the Minister. I do not wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman. He made a good speech, but it was unconvincing. He opposed the Clause, although he admitted the reasons for it. That is a non-sequitur.

"may, after consultation with the Minister"—

"make arrangements for the establishment of joint committees consisting of representatives of trawler owners, fish merchants and trade unions to consider matters affecting the welfare of workers in the industry including the provision of baths and canteens and other facilities."

I am a little uncertain how far my right hon. Friend the Minister intended to go. I am also in a little difficulty because, so far as I can make out, the Opposition have not entirely decided how they want to make what appears to be soma very necessary progress for fishermen and other interests at the various ports. That raises some difficulty in trying to decide what is the proper machinery.

Order. I suspend the sitting till news be brought to me.

I am sure that the whole House will hope that our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who has just collapsed, will soon be back with us again, and, in his characteristic fashion, be able to make further contributions to the debate on behalf of the fishing interests which he has so much at heart. We shall be glad to hear that he has recovered from his collapse and that he will be back with us again soon.

The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has pointed to the great weakness of the Minister's reply. He gave no indication whatever that he intended to do anything about trying to achieve the things that hon. Members on both sides so obviously regard as desirable. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have already been adduced about the desirability of providing the facilities indicated in the new Clause. That is self-evident at this time of day. I should have thought it fairly evident that, by and large, those conditions do mat exist. Whilst there are exceptions and certain provisions have been made in various ports of different kinds for various purposes, the conditions envisaged in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) do not generally exist.

There is considerable merit in the Clause and I am surprised that this is the first time that we have heard anything about this subject in the House. I was in the fishing industry for twenty years up to 1935. I am still in the business at Grimsby as chairman and managing director of the principal cold storage company. The excellent industrial relations prevailing at Hull have been mentioned. Similar good relations prevail at Grimsby. I believe that we are pushing at an open door. The principal filleters in Grimsby—the Unilever subsidiary, Birds Eye; the Associated Fisheries subsidiary, Eskimo, and the Ross Group, which do a vast amount of filleting at Grimsby—have first-class premises, with adequate washing and changing facilities, and so on.

I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). If he had made a speech of that kind twenty years ago, we could have appreciated it. Good employers should not be asked today to provide welfare facilities for their workers. The facilities should already exist. If the Minister does not accept the Clause he will really be telling the industry, especially the employees, that he is not interested in their welfare.

We have had a very good discussion on this new Clause, and I should at once like to associate myself with the kind wishes expressed by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). We all hope that he will soon be with us again.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) appreciates better than anyone in the House what it is that is required. He has worded his new Clause extremely carefully. He appreciates where the responsibility for providing these facilities lies; it is for the employers, the industry, to provide them. That is why he has used the words:

"Port authorities may … make arrangements for the establishments of joint committees … to consider matters affecting the welfare …"

"… encourage, by means of publicity and by advice and instruction, the improvement of conditions in the white fish industry …"

In view of what the Minister has said, and especially that Sir Robert Letch was to see what could be done, and of the possibility that some authority will be looking after the welfare of the fish dock workers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Motion.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out subsection (8).

We did say that we would reconsider this. It is a matter of balance. I think the hon. Gentleman is with me on it. On the one hand, we have the need for Parliamentary control over the money, and that leads one towards having the affirmative Resolution. Against that we have the point which he made, that this special fund is to be available to meet cases of urgency which might, for instance, arise in August. We should have to wait till the House met, perhaps late in November, before we could put the scheme into operation, and that might be to the disadvantage of the industry as a whole.

The Minister has argued that we should take a balanced view. There are arguments for and against but we were anxious to have safeguards because, despite what the Minister has said, there is still a great deal of money involved. One cannot dismiss £2½ million over a period of ten years lightly, and even if we were arguing over £250,000 with a maximum of £350,000 it would still be a large sum. Hon. Members who have responsibility want to know the details of the scheme, but I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the larger amount of money to be paid out to the industry being subject to affirmative Resolution.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "new".

The Minister has appreciated that when this matter was raised in Committee it was thought that the present wording made it possible for the payment of grants for second-hand equipment, and it was not clear that only new equipment could be grant-aided. We merely sought to clarify the existing legislation and we accept what the Minister has said.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, to leave out "those limits" and insert:

"the limits of those territorial waters".

"the limits of those territorial waters".

"… fishing for salmon or migratory trout, whether within or outside the limits of the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain …"

"… fishing for any other sea-fish within those limits".

I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, after "(1)". to insert:

"except an order which—

(a) has effect in relation to salmon or migratory trout (whether it has effect in relation to any other description of fish or not), and

(b) is not made for the sole purpose of giving effect to such a convention or agreement as is mentioned in that subsection"

(3) Any prohibition imposed by an order under the said subsection (1).

This is a complicated matter which was raised in Committee, and I am glad that the Minister has considered whether Orders made for indefinite periods should be restricted to matters connected with international fishery agreements. As the Minister has said, an Amendment has been tabled to provide that orders under this Clause relating to salmon or migratory trout should not be made for indefinite periods unless they are in pursuance of international agreements. We are glad that the Minister has looked into this. As I said, it is a complicated matter. I accept the assurance which has been given.

I beg to move, in page 10. line 23, to leave out subsection (5).

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), to Clause 11, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and in line 43, leave out subsection (8). I do not want to go too fast but those Amendments may be discussed together if the House wishes.

I am perfectly willing for that to be done, Mr. Speaker, if it is convenient to the House. We have tabled these Amendments to obtain information from the Government on a matter which we raised on a previous occasion.