asked the Postmaster-General what was the rate charged by the railways for carrying the Royal Mail in 1926; and what is the rate now charged by British Railways.

There is no simple rate for payments to the railways. But I can tell my hon. Friend that the total amount paid in 1960–61 was about five times that paid in 1926–27 whilst the traffic had nearly doubled.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters posted from London on Friday by the country post do not reach the Knutsford division until Monday morning; and what steps he is taking to improve this service.

My right hon. Friend is very sorry about these delays which have been due to failures to carry out prescribed circulation arrangements. Special checks are now being made on the mails from London to Macclesfield and Knutsford, and I understand that in recent weeks the service has improved. We shall do everything we can to avoid further failures.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for the past 17 years I have been complaining about this bad service and that there has been no improvement whatsoever? Is she further aware that before the war letters posted in the Knutsford division used to reach London by first post the same day? Therefore, from that, would my hon. Friend not further agree that the end product is always the same from any nationalised industry to the consumer—worse service at increased cost?

I am aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's complaints and I gather from what he has said that prewar we did the impossible.

asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in regard to a new post office at Blyth.

My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply of 20th March about a new office in Blyth but plans are being made to enlarge and modernise the main office there.

I welcome that reply, but does the hon. Lady realise that this virtually amounts to breach of a promise based on her reply to my Question on 28th March last when she said that she would look into the matter on the spot? We extended an invitation to her to do so, but we are still awaiting her visit. If the jobs which the President of the Board of Trade has promised my constituency and which are in the pipeline at the moment are to materialise, then additional Post Office facilities—

Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, is it in order—

I think that hon. Members are uneasy if supplementary questions are put at length. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that

The point I was making when I was rudely interrupted was that if the jobs which the President of the Board of Trade promised my constituency are to materialise, then the Post Office facilities to back those jobs up will have to be much better than they are now.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of breach of promise as far as he and I are concerned. I intend to come to his constituency.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the estimated cost of telehonic cables for the current financial year; and how much of this will be spent in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend expects to spend about £14 million on the purchase of telephone cables in the current financial year, of which approximately £150,000 will be spent on orders placed in Scotland.

Even on the Goschen formula this would not be counted as very satisfactory. Will the hon. Lady give a good example and ensure that, wherever possible and all other things being equal, these contracts are placed where employment is urgently needed, since this would encourage other Departments to do the same and assist the Government in their proclaimed policy in regard to employment?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do that. There is one difficulty in regard to telephone cables in that there is only one cable manufacturer in Scotland.

Then get another.

asked the Postmaster- General what is the estimated expenditure on Post Office uniforms in 1962; and what percentage of this will be spent in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend expects to spend about £l¼ million on Post Office uniforms in the current financial year. About 13 per cent. of this will be spent on orders placed in Scotland.

asked the Postmaster-General what percentage of Post Office telephonic equipment is manufactured in Scotland.

Just over 1 per cent.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that a large Government spending Department ought to use some of its spending power to help the Government in their overall policy? Private firms do this sort of thing; they ask other firms to do what they want them to do. Could not the Post Office see to it that it used its spending power to ensure that there was a more equitable distribution of the type of industry about which we are all concerned?

I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman makes. Perhaps he will remember that, small though it is, the proportion is twice as large as it was when he asked the question last time.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the average annual expenditure on Post Office mail collecting boxes; and what percentage of this is spent in Scotland.

Average annual expenditure over the past five years has been £65,000, Sixty-six per cent. of this has been spent on orders placed in Scotland.

I am glad to hear of the larger percentage in respect of these articles compared with some of the others mentioned today, but is the hon. Lady aware that many people who were previously employed in the foundry industry in Scotland are at present unemployed? Could not she assist her right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland in placing still more orders in Scotland?

We are well aware of the special difficulties in Scotland.

In view of all these Questions today, could not Scotland be given colonial status?

asked the Postmaster-General how many post offices are situated a half-mile or less from another post office in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend is sorry the information is not available, and it could not be obtained without disproportionate expense.

Does the hon. Lady recall that one post office was mentioned in correspondence I had recently with her, and will she be prepared to make the best use of an official pair to visit the district to see whether she can agree to give us a sub-post office?

I receive very many attractive invitations to visit different parts of the country and I do my best to fall in with hon. Members' wishes.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will continue to accept entries in the telephone directory from agents of building societies, even where the agency does not constitute the whole of a firm's business.

To prevent the London telephone directory from becoming even more unwieldy than it is, I have had to discontinue separate entries for agents under the name of the society they represent. I am, however, examining the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, and I will write to him at an early date.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is not worth making the telephone directory smaller if the information that people want is not there? Are there not firms which really need to have entries under two separate headings in the telephone directory?

Yes, but, of course, the size of the London telephone directory is increasing at the rate of 5 to 10 per cent. every year and, obviously, it cannot go on indefinitely. There are special cases, and this may well be one of them.

asked he Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to encourage the use of household letterboxes conforming to the specification of the British Standards Institution.

Publicity in many forms has been used to encourage installation of boxes conforming to the British Standards Institution specification. We have had a cartoon film on television, posters in post offices and in ironmongers' and newsagents' shops, displays in post offices and at successive building trades exhibitions as well as at the Buildings Centre in London. Local authorities have been supplied with leaflets for attachment to all building plans which they approve. A copy of the leaflet has also been sent to people whose existing letter box is particularly troublesome. Finally, my right hon. Friend has written quite recently to all local post office advisory committees seeking the help and co-operation of the members in keeping the B.S.I. specification constantly before the public.

May I ask my hon. Friend why, when her right hon. Friend wants a standardised letter box with an 8-inch opening, he sends out a circular in an envelope 9 in. by 11½ in.? Why is he sending out a circular letter using a heavy quality envelope which is designed for re-use?

That is another question.

Is not this yet another example of a nationalised industry? However many letter boxes may be installed, is it not a fact that the end product will always be the same— a worse service at increased cost?

asked the Postmaster-General if he will allow old-age pensioners to pay a reduced television licence or to pay it in quarterly instalments.

I have carefully considered these suggestions from time to time but have decided against them. The grant of a cheaper television licence to retirement pensioners would be unfair because it would be indiscriminate. To allow the fee to be paid by quarterly instalments would add unduly to the costs of collection.

While believing that the real solution is an adequate old-age pension, may I ask the Minister how he thinks that a pensioner living alone, who would probably enjoy T.V. more than anyone else, can afford £4, or, as has been suggested, £5 to £6? If a car licence can be paid for quarterly, even if it is slightly more than the quarterly part of the charge to cover the expenses of administration, why cannot T.V. licences be similarly paid quarterly?

Not all retirement pensioners rely on the retirement pension. The great majority do not. There is no parallel between the quarterly payment of the Road Fund licence and the television licence because, as the hon. Member knows, many motor cars are laid up during the winter.

In view of the fact that quite a large number of local authorities, and indeed some private enterprises and football and cricket clubs, try their best to do something to concede some privileges to these old people, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot think of some way in which a big Government Department could do the same?

Frankly, I think that the only conceivable way in which it could be done would be on the basis of quarterly payments, as suggested by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), but, of course, this figure of £5 to £6 for a television licence which has been bandied about is pure speculation. I do not know what will happen, but if there were a change on that pattern obviously the case for doing something would be strengthened.

asked the Postmaster-General when he will announce Her Majesty's Government's decision regarding cigarette advertising on commercial television.

As the hon. Member knows there are now no cigarette advertisements on television until the advertising interval before the 9 o'clock news on weekdays, and at about the same time at weekends. The Authority is examining the type and style of cigarette advertisements on television. Meanwhile the Government are urgently considering this problem, but I cannot yet say when decisions will be announced.

Since it is now ten weeks since the Royal College of Physicians issued its Report, may I ask how much longer it will be before the Government make up their mind on this matter? I hope that the Minister, if he does anything, will not merely restrict the time during which these advertisements are shown, when many people think that they should not be shown at all. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the Government are making up their mind damage to health is continuing because those advertisements of a romantic type aimed deliberately at young people are still continuously appearing?

I can assure the House that the very wide range of suggestions in this Report are being considered as a matter of urgency and I.T.A. is discussing the matter with its Advertising Advisory Committee, which may recommend a complete ban. If it does, that advice would be mandatory on I.T.A. I have power, if I decide to use it, to ban all cigarette advertising on television, but I would not dream of doing that precipitately until Ministers have had a full opportunity of considering all the implications.

Will my right hon. Friend direct his particular attention to the advertisement which offers gift vouchers to those who buy cigarettes of a variety which I happened to see advertised last Sunday, since, having regard to the terms of the Report, this appears to be undesirable?

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that nobody is forced to smoke and that the advertisements do not force people to smoke? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not follow the bad example of Italy in this matter?

I do not happen to know what the example of Italy is, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will not jump to conclusions in this matter.

asked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the number of television sets currently in use and what is the present number of television licence holders.

Nearly 12 million combined sound and television licences were in force on the 31st March, 1962. No doubt more sets are in use, because some people have more than one set, and others illegally use sets without a licence. How many of the latter there are I can not estimate, but I am continuously trying to reduce the number.

What steps are being taken to reduce the difference, by way of detector vans and so on, and can my right hon. Friend give an idea of how much revenue is being lost to his Department by pirates?

We are continuously trying to track down cases of this sort. It is not possible to say how many people are evading the licence fee, but I can tell my hon. Friend that last year the Post Office launched about 13,000 successful prosecutions.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will allocate a frequency for the Emergency Radio Communications Service which is being pioneered in Birmingham by the Industrial Police Association.

A two-frequency channel was assigned to this service in 1959. I am sorry that I cannot allot a channel to the service for their exclusive use because the demand for channels in the Birmingham area is so heavy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the channel which he has allocated is used by taxi firms and bulldozer contractors who carry on very long conversations which render the channel quite unsuitable for security purposes? In view of the satisfactory way in which the scheme started originally, ought not he to do something about it and go even further to try to extend it all over the country?

I think there is a little misunderstanding here, because an exclusive channel does not guarantee secrecy from unauthorised listeners. There are similar security services in the Midlands with channels which they are also obliged to share. The fact is that there are simply not enough frequencies to enable small private mobile radio services of this kind to have exclusive channels of the kind my hon. Friend wants. It is a hightly matter, and I shall be delighted to write to my hon. Friend to explain the matter in detail.

asked the Postmaster-General how many telephone kiosks he expects to instal during the current year; and what percentage of these will be made in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend expects that about 1,200 kiosks will be installed during the current financial year, and that all of them will be made in Scotland.

asked the Postmaster-General how many applications there now are from the Sedgefield parliamentary constituency for the installation of telephones; and what period such applications cover.

In addition to applications under inquiry or in course of being met, 63 applications are on the waiting lists for the exchanges serving the Sedge-field constituency. Of these, 16 were received before 31st March, 1961, and 8 before 31st March, 1960.

asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what was the annual grant by Her Majesty's Government to Voluntary Service Overseas in each of the financial years 1958–59, 1959–60, 1960–61, and 1961–62, respectively; and what annual grant is now proposed for 1962–63.

In 1958–59, no help was asked for. In later years, grants have been and are being made as follows:

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of the wonderful work which is being done by Voluntary Service Overseas, these grants are lamentably small and that they come to £34,000 in all since 1959? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the American Government last year gave to the American Peace Corps, which was directly inspired by our Voluntary Service Overseas, 30 million dollars, and that this year that sum is likely to be increased to 60 million dollars? Will my right hon. Friend see whether the grant made by our Government cannot be increased in a similar way?

I am in agreement with what my hon. and learned Friend says about the wonderful work of Voluntary Service Overseas, but this is one organisation in one aspect of overseas service. I have been having talks with all the voluntary bodies concerned, and I am having a further meeting tomorrow and will bear in mind what my hon. and learned Friend says.

Is the Minister aware that this organisation has tremendous possibilities for development, but that at the moment the bottleneck is finance? Will he bear in mind that Members on both sides of the House look to the Government to give a bigger lead in supporting this organisation?

I have been having talks with all the voluntary bodies, and I am meeting them again tomorrow, when I hope I shall have something further to say.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a better principle to devote sums of money to this sort of thing and take off a little from some of the grants or loans which we give to these countries, so as to use this money to help people going out there rather than let these countries invest in something which may not be of such lasting value?

Yes, but part of my task is to meet the requests of overseas countries for technical people, which cannot be met on a voluntary basis.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what were the amounts spent on interest charges in repayment of loans by Bedlingtonshire Urban District Council, Seaton Valley Urban District Council and Blyth Borough in each of the years from 1951 to 1961.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for arranging to do that, may I ask him if he will take notice that at the moment these interest charges are having an adverse effect on the housing arrangements of these councils? Is he aware that it takes almost as much as the cost of three houses to pay the interest charges on one?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point, but the figures which he will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT Will reflect both the expansion of capital investment financed by loans as well as the interest rates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following the Bank Rate reduction there has been no reduction at all in interest charges which local authorities are having to pay? What does he propose to do about that?

The interest charges which local authorities pay are much more a matter of long-term borrowing, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Switzerland is lending I.C.I. an immense sum of money—£5 million—at a lower rate of interest than that at which it can be borrowed in this country? Will he make arrangements for local authorities troubled about high interest rates to borrow from Switzerland?

I am grateful for the tit-bit of information which the hon. Gentleman gives.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what he estimates the total cost of the public inquiry into the boundaries of Leicester, commencing on 28th May, will be;

The greater part of the cost of the inquiry will consist of fees paid to counsel by authorities who choose to be so represented. Since these fees are matters for private arrangement, I am not in a position to estimate the overall cost of the inquiry. The general arrangement for such inquiries is that my Department bears its own costs, and the parties appearing at the inquiry bear theirs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many ratepayers and taxpayers in Leicester and Leicestershire who object to providing this fortnight's paid spree for the legal profession? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, as it was the Government's Boundary Commission which in the first place rather like a bull in a china shop initiated these proposals, possibly all the cost of the inquiry should be met from the Exchequer?

Whether an authority is represented by counsel or not is a matter for the authority. Indeed, in three major inquiries recently authorities were not so represented, but if authorities do decide to be so represented I think they should bear the cost.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date he reached his decision on the Oxford Road scheme.

Shortly before the decision was issued on 15th March.

In that case, was it not a providential coincidence that there was a Question down for Written Answer on Friday, 16th March—perhaps an arranged Question? In view of the very great interest in this matter, would it not have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have told the House about it orally?

I gave the Answer as soon as possible after the decision. It was a providential arrangement that a Question was put down enabling me to give the Answer.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that it was a providential arrangement, does he mean that he arranged it?

It was a matter of cooperation.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD a summary of the various proposed solutions of the Oxford traffic problem, including Sir Roy Harrod's suggestion of a tunnel, together with his reasons for rejecting all those proposals which do not involve a road across Christ Church Meadow.

I would refer the hon. Member to the summary of Sir Frederick Armer's Report following the inquiry in December, 1960. Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office. The suggestion of a tunnel was dealt with in the evidence of the city council summarised in paragraph 55 of the report. My Department's letter of 15th March to the town clerk setting out the reasons which led to the conclusion in favour of the Meadow Road deals with the main factors affecting this and other possible solutions. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member and placing others in the Vote Office.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why, in his answer of 16th March, he said there was "no doubt" that the destruction of the Meadow was the most effective way of dealing with the problem? Surely there is doubt about it? It has been hotly argued for a good many years. Can he also say what he meant by

"—any measures which will reduce the impact of the road "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March. 1962: Vol. 655, c. 200.]

I have said there was no doubt, because there was no doubt in the mind of Sir Frederick Armer, who reported, and in my own mind, for I had to reach the decision.

How can my right hon. Friend say that there is no doubt about this matter? Is not he aware that his decision has caused a great deal of consternation? Would not he be prepared to agree that the beauties of Oxford should be held in trust for posterity? Whether this is necessary or not, to say that there is no doubt about it is a moot point. Will my right hon. Friend carry his responsibilities a little more seriously?

The word "doubt" was used in this connection. I said:

"… there is no doubt that this is the most effective way to provide the relief so badly needed in the centre of the City and the University."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 200.]

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? What does he mean by "any measures which will reduce the impact of the road on the Meadow", in view of the fact that this Meadow is prized not only by Christ Church but by all the people of Oxford and by thousands of visitors?

One of the measures referred to was the sinking of the road, a matter left open for future consideration.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement about his recent discussions with a deputation from Essex councils concerning Her Majesty's Government's proposals for local government reorganisation.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18th May to a Question about the boundary of Greater London from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown).

Is the Minister aware that at no time during the last ten years have the Government ever had a mandate for these proposals and that at each by-election and council election, particularly the last one, the Government have lost the confidence of the people? Why are the Government intent on carrying out these proposals when they have no mandate for them? Will not the right hon. Gentleman leave them until after the next General Election to see whether the people support them?

When the Bill comes before the House, the hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, will have an opportunity of making his views known.

Will the Minister put somewhere in the House a map showing the effect of the alterations which he announced last Friday so that they can be checked?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the effects of Section 60 of the Housing Act, 1957, whereby tenants of a fit house in a clearance area are precluded from payments in respect of well-main-tamed houses; and if he will introduce legislation to end this anomaly.

I assume the hon. Member has in mind the compulsory purchase of a fit house under slum clearance powers. The owner of a fit house receives market value compensation. A payment for good maintenance, which can be added to site value in the case of an unfit house, cannot therefore be made in addition.

Is not the Minister aware that when a well-maintained payment is made the local authority has the right to allocate the compensation between the tenant who has spent the money and the landlord, but that if the house is declared fit all of the money goes to the landlord thereby depriving the tenant of his rights? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is right?

What happens in the case of a fit house, which is set, like the hon. Gentleman's example, in the middle of a clearance area, is that what is paid is paid in the same way, and to the owner, as if the house were disposed of in the ordinary way.

The Minister is missing the point. Is he not aware that the local authority can make a well-maintained payment for an unfit house and give the whole of it to the tenant who has paid the money, but that if the house is declared fit the tenant who has paid the money loses all his rights because the money is paid to the landlord?

I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point, because he is right in saying that there is a mode of distribution for the good maintenance payment. The good maintenance payment cannot be paid in respect of a fit house bought at valuation in the ordinary way.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many applications have been made to him by local authorities in the Greater London area for the compulsory purchase of houses for which excessive rents have been demanded by landlords from sitting tenants; on how many cases the applications have been refused; and if he will indicate the range in rent increases that led to those applications by local authorities.

Forty-seven compulsory purchase orders have been submitted for confirmation in response to Circular 45/60. Eighteen of them have since been withdrawn. Of the remaining 29 I have refused to confirm 12, but in five of these the rent was not in dispute.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my district and in other districts exorbitant rents are being demanded by property corporations? In one case in particular in my area rents have increased from £2 a week to about six guineas a week. May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathetically consider any application made by the local council for the compulsory acquisition of property in this category?

A local council is fully entitled to make an order and to submit it in respect of cases covered by the circular. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is impossible for me to make any general statement which could be held to cover individual cases.

Could the right hon. Gentleman answer more precisely the last point in my hon. Friend's supplementary question? We would then have a better idea of what the Government regard as an exorbitant rent.

May I take two typical examples in a recent application. It was proposed to increase the rent of a two-roomed flat from 28s. to 35s., an increase from 4÷5 to 5·6 of gross value, and to increase the rent of a three-roomed fiat from 30s. to 45s.

Would not the Minister agree that if a rent is treble what it was originally that is an extremely exorbitant increase?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am bound by the circular within existing law. Only when tenants are in danger of becoming homeless as a result of exorbitant rents is an application granted.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the present average cost per acre of land acquired by local authorities for domestic building purposes in the extra-metropolitan districts of Essex, compared with similar costs in 1938, 1946, and 1952.

I am afraid that records of land cost have not been kept separately.

Surely the Minister has some sort of information on this very important aspect of housing. Surely he is aware that the cost of land for housing has increased constantly and is still increasing. Cannot he give some indication about how that affects building costs?

That is the breakdown which I do not have. A Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the records of the Valuation Office might supply the answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his intentions with regard to the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins' assets.

I have nothing to add to previous statements on this matter.

To which of the previous statements has the Chancellor nothing to add? Is it the statement that the assets will be sold before the General Election, which was made by one Minister, or the statement that they will not be sold before the General Election, which was the statement made by Lord Mills?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read what I said on 27th October, 1960. That, in particular, is one of the statements to which I have nothing to add.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of concern about the future of this enterprise in South Wales? Can he be clear about this? Is it the Government's intention to sell the assets of Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd. before the next General Election or at some time in the immediate future? People have a right to know the Government's plans on a matter of this sort.

With regard to the relationship of this sale with the next General Election, there is plenty of time. I understand that there need not be an election until October,1964. We have said again and again that our intention is that the concern should be de-vested, but when depends on the circumstances. I think that the important factor is to judge the time at which a fair price can be obtained, and that depends on the development plan, which is not yet completed.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think it fair to treat a great steel firm in this fashion? If it was proposed to nationalise a firm, would the Government leave it in doubt what was to happen? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that his statement to which he referred the House was flatly contradicted by Lord Mills last year. Is it not a fact that the real reason why the Government will not state their intentions in public as Lord Mills stated them in private is that they are in a blue funk about what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) might say about them.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, nor do I understand his argument about uncertainty. Most of British industry, which is now in private hands, would be in a state of uncertainty in the dreadful event of the Socialist Party returning to power.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Lord Mills said in private what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) thinks he said, then the hon. Gentleman should be the first to give three cheers for Lord Mills?

I understand that there was an Adjournment debate on that topic. I stick by what I said in October, 1960.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that, under his policy, steel shares have fallen so much that most steel company shareholders are hoping for renationalisation?

That is the sort of very specious statement which the right hon. Gentleman would make.

Is the Chancellor aware that this very well-run, nationally-owned concern is a revenue-earning concern? In view of the fact that he is putting 15 per cent. on kiddies' sweets to get money, he had better leave this concern alone so that he obtains the revenue which he wants for the nation from such a flourishing concern.

The fact is that the development programme has not yet reached maturity and the extent to which it is a flourishing concern cannot yet be determined.

As a result of these exchanges, are we to take it that the Government do not know when they will sell this company, that they still intend to sell it but are unable to reassure people working in the industry about their future, and that the only thing they are determined to do is to ensure that the £80 million of profit made for the nation shall be dissipated to the steel masters?

I do not accept at all what the hon. Member has said. We have stated our policy again and again. That policy has been confirmed by the electors again and again and we shall judge the time at which a fair price can be obtained.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much British capital is invested in Hong Kong; and how much of that amount is invested in the cotton textile industry.

I regret that figures of the total amount of United Kingdom capital invested in Hong Kong are not available; the annual amount of direct investment by the United Kingdom in Hong Kong is of the order of £1–£2 million a year net. Figures of the annual amount of other private investment are not available, nor are any figures on the amount invested in the cotton textile industry.

Is the Minister aware that these figures ought to be available in view of the serious deterioration in the cotton textile industry? Is he further aware that I have a deep personal interest inasmuch as my constituency—Burnley—is most seriously affected? If these figures are not available, ought they not to become available so that we can see the extent of the effect upon our vital industry?

I assure the hon. Member that there are real difficulties about making these figures available, as was clearly shown in the relevant section of the Radcliffe Report. If the hon. Member wishes, I will send him the sections of the Radcliffe Report which point out the considerable magnitude and complications of the task of obtaining the figures.

Will not the Minister further consider this matter? Is he not aware that if British capital is employed to any large extent in building up the cotton textile industry in Hong Kong, it is at the dire expense of a major industry in this country that is rattling fast to catastrophe? Is it not the Government's duty at least to ascertain the facts so that they may consider what their policy should be?

Certainly, within the limits of my previous supplementary answer, we will look at the question of these figures again, although there are real difficulties in the matter. The hon. Member's supplementary question raises, however, a general economic issue which is rather too wide to discuss at Question Time.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the greater part of the money invested in the Hong Kong textile industry came from China and really came from the Shanghai-owned mills, and that competition with Lancashire is not a matter of how much capital there is there but how quickly it is turned over and use is made of it in the two respective countries?

I cannot answer the first part of that supplementary question without notice. With regard to the second part, there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says.

Reverting to the lack of information, would it not have been necessary for the Prime Minister to have this information available before he met the leaders of the textile industry last week to discuss the future of the cotton industry with them?

There is no desire on the part of the Government to hide these matters. Some figures have been published for past years by the Board of Trade. The figures are necessarily incomplete and, as I have said, the Radcliffe Report has explained the great difficulty of obtaining precise figures when one is considering a census of assets overseas owned by British companies. We will do our best, but this is a more difficult matter than hon. Members opposite suppose.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange a meeting with Chancellor Adenauer and President de Gaulle in order to overcome objections currently raised by West Germany and France to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

No, Sir. Negotiations in Brussels are proceeding in accordance with the agreed programme.

Is not the Prime Minister concerned by the fact that both President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer have recently made very slighting references to the British prospects of joining the Common Market? Would it not be as well to try to clear the ground, because there is obviously a great difference between what their officials are saying and what the heads of the respective countries are thinking?

No. The negotiations are proceeding according to the programme. I am having the opportunity of seeing President de Gaulle in a week or two's time and, naturally, this subject may be discussed. By far the best thing is to proceed with the negotiations, which are going along as we expected.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is being extensively publicised in the national Press that as a result of the position adopted by President de Gaulle Her Majesty's Government have now reached a critical stage in the negotiations concerning the Commonwealth? Therefore, will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention when he meets President de Gaulle to make it clear that he is not prepared in any circumstances to move away from his original position of seeking full safeguards for the Commonwealth countries?

That is what the negotiations are about.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will request President Kennedy to make available to Her Majesty's Government the evidence, in the possession of the United States Government, on the basis of which the American seismologist, Professor Lewis Don Leet, claims that he has discovered a fool-proof method of detecting underground nuclear tests in order that Her Majesty's Government's scientific advisers may study it.

There are regular exchanges of information between Her Majesty's Government's scientific advisers and those of the United States Government. The United States and British Governments have spent a great deal of time and money over many years in an attempt to find a satisfactory method of detecting and verifying underground tests, so they are naturally disposed to study hopefully any claim by a reputable scientist that the problem has been solved.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if Professor Don Leet's claims are correct, the differences between the Soviet Union and the West on inspection can be resolved and a test ban treaty negotiated? Is he not aware that the Russians are about to resume another round of tests and that we all deplore this? Will he not, therefore, urge both the Russians and the Americans to postpone all further tests until Professor Don Leet's claims have been tested?

No, Sir. We have not any detailed information, and this may be an interesting addition to the scientific knowledge on this subject, but, of course, the fundamental problem remains of how, when a challenge is made, it is to be resolved.

Is the Prime Minister advised that simply by underground testing any nation can make such an overwhelming advance as to alter the whole balance of power without testing in the air?

We have tried this in various ways. First, we suggested a ban on atmospheric tests. The Russians rejected that and said that they could accept only a complete ban. We replied, "All right, let us study how to have a complete ban". Then they said," We will not deal with the problem of underground tests when they are thrown up". And so we are still working. I do not consider it a fair picture to suggest that the British and Americans are the people who have held this up. We have done everything we can to be as flexible as possible.

Reverting to the claim by Professor Lewis Don Leet, can the Prime Minister say whether this is now being examined by the United States Government's scientists and whether our own scientists have yet been consulted on the matter?

I am having it looked into by our own scientists.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Professor Don Leet claims to have 90 per cent. certainty of detection at 1,500 miles from the point of explosion, 95 per cent. certainty a little nearer and 100 per cent. a little nearer still? Does not this mean, therefore, that what the Prime Minister is insisting upon in the way of inspection is not necessary and that the world could be relieved of the shadow of these terrible tests if every effort were made to take these claims seriously and to stop tests in the meantime?

No, Sir, I do not accept that as a fair representation of what we have been trying to do. We are perfectly ready to look at this or any new discovery. The problem still remains that when something has happened and it is not certain whether it is from artificial or natural causes, there is still the need to make an on-site inspection. It may be that that problem will be overcame, but even that stands upon the ipse dixit of the country. What happens if we say to a country, "Our scientists say you have made a test" and that country replies, "No, we have not"? There must be some agreed method by which the job can be done.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has studied the further evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Easington in regard to the radioactive fall-out consequent on the forthcoming atomic tests; and if he will call for a further examination of the problem by his scientific advisers in the light of this evidence.

The right hon. Gentleman sent me a letter signed by a number of biologists which appeared in the Press last week. This letter contained no evidence about the effects of fall-out which has not already been published by the Government. These matters remain under continuing examination by the Government's scientific advisers.

As Professor Wadding-ton and his friends are eminent biologists, does not this indicate a conflict of opinion about radioactive fall-out? In the circumstances and in view of that conflict of opinion, would it not be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to submit Professor Wadding-ton's letters, and any additional evidence that he may care to put forward, to his scientific advisers and then inform the House about their conclusions?

No doubt our scientific advisers are fully conversant with these views. It all comes down to one point. Of course we deplore these tests, and of course we want to bring them to an end. The only question is the balance of duty, and it is a hard duty to decide whether in the interests of defence and the situation in which we found ourselves a few weeks ago we must agree with our American friends to continue the tests or whether we should not do so. We have debated this matter, and we have discussed it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] We have discussed it in Question and Answer. I have made my statements, and I understand that it can be debated in two days' time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I raised not the question of tests but the question of the consequences of tests, and that all I am asking—I think it is a perfectly reasonable submission—is that his scientific advisers should take note of any evidence that Professor Waddington, an eminent biologist, can adduce?

Yes, Sir; of course we will do that. I will see that the evidence is studied by those whose duty it is to advise me.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state on what basis Members of Parliament are selected to attend the Council of Europe at Strasbourg and other international conferences; and what action he takes to ensure that these visits are shared among all Members.

As I said in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 19th April, I am responsible for the appointment of the delegation from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union. I also said that the appointments of Labour and Liberal representatives and substitutes had been made on the basis of nominations by the leaders of those parties.

Is the Prime Minister aware, with regard to the conferences for which he is responsible, that it is very often the same little group that have been circulating these visits among themselves on both sides of the House over the past few years? Is he aware that there are many hon. Members, excluding myself, who have been here for 20 years or more and have never been on any of these visits, and they feel it is about time that these visits were shared out not on the basis of giving them to the yes-men of either party, but in a way to give all hon. Members a chance to take part in such proceedings?

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I do not see how I am to resolve my difficulties. I have the duty of appointing these delegates. It seems to me not unnatural to ask the leaders of the parties to make their appointments, and so far as my party is concerned, I make my own. We might, of course, do it by some other method, such as ballot, but so far I do not think that what I have tried to do has been regarded as unfair by the parties in the House. I am only trying to carry out what has seemed to me to be my duty.

Can the Prime Minister say whether he is responsible, or whether the usual channels are, for the selection of those small groups of favoured Members of Parliament who seem to be constantly going to the other side of the Iron Curtain?

I should like to be consulted, but I have not been up to now. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has.

Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that these international gatherings to which perhaps a score of countries send their representatives offer an unrivalled opportunity for political contact-men to exercise their influence and tout for contracts on commission? Would he, therefore, exercise the greatest care when making his selections and bring the same influence to bear on the leaders of the other parties?

I think it would be more in accordance with the traditions of this House if the hon. Member, when having a charge to make, made it directly and not by innuendo.

Is the Prime Minister not aware that these charges have already been made and published in the Press and not denied?

Why does not my hon. Friend prove them?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise hon. Members generally and myself in particular what the position is with regard to jibes and innuendoes which are constantly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger)? He is making innuendoes which are not true. He knows them to be untrue. Yet these things are continuously said. Would it be in order for me to say that my hon. Friend is earning money by being the manager of a striptease theatre? It happens to be the case that my hon. Friend is the manager of the theatre which introduced striptease to England. Surely that is not a question which should be raised on the Floor of the House?

In so far as this involves a point of order, to make imputations against the private characters of hon. Members, particularly in a question, is out of order, but if it is put in a general form I cannot so rule it because I do not know to whom it is attached. If the hon. Member was naming another hon. Member to make the kind of imputation which he suggested, I should be obliged to rule about it.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I was named by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), who referred to me as having introduced striptease to Britain. I am not sure where he got his facts. I did not introduce striptease to England. Nor am I the manager of a striptease theatre.

In no circumstances, even if irregular imputations were made, would this be the right moment to debate the matter or argue about it. I suggest to the House that we should get on with our Questions.

I leave those personal exchanges, Mr. Speaker, and come back to the original Question. Is the Prime Minister aware that with regard to nominations from this side of the House, far from the people being exactly the same every year, they are changed regularity every two years? In fact, we continually get complaints because we do not keep delegates on long enough.

This is a rather difficult problem, but I should have thought that on the whole we try to combine a certain degree of continuity, which is valuable in these European Assemblies where friendships are made and contacts of important kinds are maintained, with a reasonable degree of variation. That is what I think all of us try to do in making our nominations.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations Her Majesty's Government had with the co-Chairman of the 1954 Geneva Conference before agreeing to send troops to Thailand.

None, Sir. The present—

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Question as printed refers to "co-Chairman". It should be" co-Chairmen".

Despite that vital correction, my Answer will not be seriously affected. None, Sir. The present Geneva Conference is concerned with the settlement of the Laotian question. As I said in the House on 17th May in reply to a Question from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the objective of our Air Force contingent, if it is sent to Thailand, will be to defend that country if it is attacked. That is quite a different matter from the subject of the Geneva Conference and the question of consulting the Soviet co-Chairman of that Conference did not arise.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 1954 Conference devised a formula Which would have brought peace and security to South-East Asia, but that it seemed to be retarded because too many troops came in to spoil the broth, particularly from the West? Would it not appear that Thailand, too, is now of the view that she does not want more troops? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore not reconsider his offer to send British forces to Thailand.

No, Sir. Our offer and the offers of Australia and New Zealand have been a stabilising influence. Whether those offers are accepted or not rests with the Thai Government, and I have made that clear. I am not without hope that, after many disappointments, we shall make some advance towards what we are trying to do, which is to get a settlement by the creation of a neutral Government. We hope by that means to keep Laos a neutral country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any proposal has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government that the International Control Commission should examine the facts of the breaking of the cease-fire? Can he also say whether or not it is possible for the Geneva Conference itself to consider again the situation in Laos with a view to obtaining the settlement mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?

We have, of course, considered reconvening the Conference, but I am not sure that that would be the best thing to do at the moment. The Conference did reach a conclusion, and it was very satisfactory that it did. The difficulty has been to implement the conclusion, which was to try to set up a neutral Government representing these various sections, and that is what we are trying to do. If we can succeed, we shall have succeeded in carrying out the purpose of the Conference.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question about the Control Commission?

The International Control Commission's duty is to try to re-establish the cease-fire. We have been in touch with the Governments concerned, and we hope that this will be possible to achieve. By far the best thing would be if the conference which I believe is now going to take place succeeded in making the new Government. Then I think we would have done far the best thing to settle things in that part of the world.

In view of what the Prime Minister has just said, does it not seem that the Conference is a far more important matter than sending troops which, it would appear, Thailand does not want? Would he therefore not reconsider sending them from the point of view that it would be a better contribution to the Conference and to peace to keep the troops here?

This was an offer of troops for which the Thai Government are grateful, and they will decide whether to take it up or not.