asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider introducing legislation to abolish August Bank Holiday, and add the day either to the statutory holiday period or let it be taken as convenient to employer and employee, bearing in mind the vital necessity to reduce motor traffic at holiday periods.

This is only one of the possibilities thrown up by the wider examination of the problem of extending the summer holiday season. Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to make any statement on this.

Is not the August Bank Holiday really nonsense in this modern age, bearing in mind that schools have already packed up and the holiday season is on? The real point is, do we want this vast number of cars on the road on August Bank Holiday, a number which increases year by year, especially if it is fine weather? Lubbock's day goes back to 1871 when August Bank Holiday was initiated, and is it not high time, with due respect to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that it went?

These may or may not be relevant considerations, but I think that the House will agree that it would be best to consider them in the context of the wider examination which is at present going on.

Can the Minister say whether he has been in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in this connection, and, further, whether he has received a document on this very subject from the Leicestershire County Chamber of Commerce?

With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have no recollection of receiving such a document. As far as the general examination is concerned, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I should have thought it almost certain that those considering this matter will have had advice from the Ministry of Transport.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report of the University Grants Committee and the universities with medical schools concerning the expansion of medical schools during the next five years.

In about two months' time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is greater urgency? May I ask whether he has given further consideration to the request which I made some time ago that as soon as Durham University is separated from Newcastle it should have its own medical faculty?

The hon. Member will recognise that nothing can be done on this matter until the University Grants Committee submits its recommendations to the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in view of the staffing difficulties which the universities are having, especially the medical schools, many believe that it would be better to expand the existing medical schools rather than set up new ones?

I do not want to enter, certainly at this stage, into this internecine controversy in the North-East, but I think the whole House will agree with me that it would be wrong for me to say anything at all until I receive the report of the University Grants Committee.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there are to be new medical schools the place which is ripe beyond all other places is, of course, north Staffordshire, at Keele Universtity?

I am greatly impressed by the constituency loyalty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when denationalising Richard Thomas & Baldwins, he will allow holders of post-war credits to have the option of converting the whole or part of their holdings into ordinary stock of the company, with such restrictions as to future sale or transfer of the stock as may be necessary.

I cannot comment on the arrangements which might be made on a sale of this company. My hon. Friend's proposal would, however, be open to serious objection.

Would not my proposal have two undoubted merits? One is that the present holders of post-war credits might well find when they are eventually paid out that the purchasing value of post-war credits has gone down to about a quarter of the original value and that a share in an equity such as Richard Thomas & Baldwins might enable them to recover something from the wreck. Secondly, it would help considerably in the marketing operation which would have to follow the denationalisation?

Be that as it may, I think that the proposal of my hon. Friend would have at least two demerits. Any sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins by a public offer of shares would be a large and very complicated operation if only because of the size of the company. It would be an intolerable burden on the issuing houses which would have to handle any such public offer if the arrangements were further complicated by a requirement that post-war credits were to be accepted in payment of shares. There are other lengthy reasons which, if he wishes, I will write to my hon. Friend about, but there are great difficulties in his proposal even if it were desirable in principle.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not regard the first objection as anything but a technical difficulty and I could explain how to overcome it if he desires?

Whatever the merits of the proposal, is not the Chief Secretary glad to hear that investment in a nationalised industry is likely to be so valuable that it would recover for the post-war credit holders the value of their credits which has been lost by Government inflation over the last ten years?

While understanding the fears which hon. Members opposite have in seeing a nationalised steel industry running so efficiently alongside those Which are denationalised, may I ask whether the hon. Member would agree that the Government have far more important things to think about than the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins?

The importance which the Government attach to this question is, I think, clearly apparent from the answers which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave only the other day, on 22nd May.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost of all the social services combined for each financial year since the war.

As the reply contains a large number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIALREPORT.

Could my right hon. Friend give the figure for 1951 and 1961? Do those figures uphold the accusation that the Tories would cut the social services?

The figure for 1951–52 was £2,083 million and the estimated figure for 1961–62 is £4,233 million.

Will the Chief Secretary consider including in his reply to this Question the change in money values which has taken place in each of the years mentioned, so that Members of Parliament and the public generally may make a true and fair comparison of those figures?

If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Order Paper, I shall certainly endeavour to answer it, but this enormous increase in expenditure on the social services under Conservative Government is one of the things which make me unpopular when I have to control further rate of growth.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, following the 15 per cent. tax on chocolate, some retail chemists have raised the price of chocolate for diabetics from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 4d. for a three-ounce block, an increase of 40 per cent.; and if he will take special steps by legislation to stabilise the price of diabetic chocolate.

The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir". With regard to the first part, I have made inquiries and my information is that, in general, the increases in price have not been as suggested in the Question.

If I can produce evidence that there are such cases, would not the hon. Gentleman think that a good way of avoiding such overcharging would be to remove the 15 per cent. Purchase Tax from all chocolates and sweets and then there would be no pretext for this increase?

We have already spent many hours considering that very question. I think the hon. Member knows the view of the Government on it very well. If he will let me have details of the particular case he has in mind, I shall certainly be glad to look at it.

Is it not a fact that at present there is a substantial remission of Purchase Tax on a large number of medicaments? Could that not be extended to diabetic foods and other requirements of diabetics to help them to lead a normal life?

We considered very carefully whether this type of product should be excluded from the scope of the new tax, but we came to the conclusion that if we were to do so it would inevitably lead to anomalies and disturbance in the trade. For these reasons, we decided that we must include it.

If the Minister will not take the special steps proposed, what other steps does he propose to take to control the price of these commodities, which enter into the cost of living? Is he aware that since we last debated the matter there has been a marked increase, of two points, in the cost of living and that it has gone up more in the last 12 months than at any time since the end of the war, except in the year of the Korean War? Is he aware that a man's wages of £15 a week are worth 18s. a week less than a year ago? How does he expect to sustain the pay pause in that situation?

I thought I had made it clear already that, as a result of this Question beiing on the Order Paper, I had made inquiries and that the information I have is that in general the increase of prices is not as is suggested in the Question. As to whether we should take special steps by legislation to deal with the price of this particular type of chocolate, I would only say that the Government of which the hon. Member was a member tried price control and it was hardly an unmitigated success.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds commutation rates have been made less favourable as from 2nd April for officers wishing to make provision for their wives against widowhood; and what consultations took place with the representative organisation's concerned before this decision was made.

The table of commutation rates has been brought up to date so as to take account of recent more favourable mortality experience and of the higher rates of interest paid by the Government for their own borrowing. I do not think it would be appropriate to consult non-Governmental bodies on matters of this kind. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Service pension code includes non-contributory pensions for widows; commutation of retired pay is not the normal way of making provision for them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people, including myself, think that if ever the Government can have a go at Service widows they seem inclined to do so? If he thinks that the Government ought not to consult, that would not be the view of those who have to do what they can to remedy the very low pensions of widows, which the Government fail to accept as their proper responsibility. I am very annoyed about this decision.

I am sorry to be in controversy with my hon. Friend after the nice things she said about me in the House the other day. Until recently commutation was producing a lump sum which was worth more than the annual sums so commuted. When Parliament passed the Pension Commutation Acts I am sure that was not Parliament's intention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the letter, dated 29th March, sent him by the British Gas Staff Association on the composition of the National Economic Development Council.

If my hon. Friend is referring to a letter written by Sir Ronald Gould on behalf of the Conference of Professional and Public Service Organisations, on which the British Gas Staff Association is represented, I would refer her to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) on 10th April.

I was not referring to that letter. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the price of electricity has gone up? Is it not about time that "Neddy" had in it some representatives from ordinary consumers and professional associations? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not think that "Neddy" is fully representative and that I am not at all happy about employers and trade unionists agreeing to an increase in prices to the detriment of the consumer? When is the consumer to get a run for his money?

I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that the Chancellor will be prepared to revise the composition of the National Economic Development Council, but of course any organisation which has not got someone of its own on that Council is perfectly at liberty to write either to the Council or to the Chancellor and put forward its views.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is within his power to withdraw the instruction to the electricity boards to increase their prices in order that they should finance new capital development out of the consumer? Would that not be a very good way of helping to reduce the cost of living?

I find these questions about electricity tariffs a very long way from the Question about the British Gas Staff Association.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in respect of how many civil servants and local government officers Inland Revenue forms P.11.D.are completed;

The legislation in respect of which these forms are issued has never applied to civil servants; nor has it applied to employees of local authorities unless they are wholly or mainly employed for the purposes of a trade carried on by the local authority. In that case, the form is required to be completed, but no information is available as to the number of forms involved.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that it will cause considerable disturbance among chartered accountants and other persons dealing with Income Tax matters, to learn of this very substantial privilege apparently being given to public employees? There can be no doubt that considerable fringe benefits are enjoyed by members of the nationalised industries. Will my hon. Friend give some further assurance that those fringe benefits will be properly scrutinised for tax purposes, ac they are in the case of private citizens?

I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood my Answer. The legislation does apply to the nationalised industries, and the forms have to be filled in by those who are employed by the nationalised industries. Civil servants and local authority employees, other than those concerned with the trading activities of a local authority, are excluded because— and I think that this will be accepted by every hon,member— their expenses payments are more strictly regulated than is generally the case in industry and commerce. Therefore, the ordinary Pay-as-you-Earn machinery is normally sufficient.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this will give the public the impression that there is another fiddle going on?

Whatever impression my hon. Friend may have, I can only say that if he really thinks that this is some sort of fiddle, then he has a totally false impression.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a National Sports Council will now be appointed to administer the money furnished by the Exchequer for the carrying out of the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report on Sport and Physical Recreation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement about the proposed formation of a National Sports Development Council.

No decision on a National Sports Council has yet been taken. My right hon. and learned Friend's statement of 8th May only concerned additional resources to be at the disposal of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and local authorities, for expenditure on sport and physical recreation for which they are responsible.

Will the Chief Secretary represent to the Chancellor that, while I have expressed gratitude to him on behalf of the Parliamentary Sports Committee for keeping the Wolfenden Report alive and providing money for a modest start, the chief recommendation of the Wolfenden Report, made unanimously by. a body of great authority, was that a Sports Council should be set up, because that would mean greater efficiency, and, therefore, greater economy?

I shall certainly bring what the right hon. Gentleman has just said to the Chancellor's attention.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the House debated this matter exactly fourteen months ago, when the Government spokesman said that the subject was actively under consideration? Why has it taken the Government another fourteen months to consider the matter without reaching any conclusion?

Because the Government do consider these matters very carefully.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while the role of the Council in regard to public expenditure might be very difficult to decide, such a Council as this could be of great value in distributing the funds, both capital funds and those for maintenance, that are to go to voluntary organisations?

I am sure that the Chancellor will consider what my hon. Friend has said, but my hon. Friend will realise that I am not in a position to say anything further today.

The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, although many of us interested in these matters are grateful for the Treasury contribution, the Government are only half completing the work if they do not appoint a Sports Council which will have an overall supervision of the distribution of those funds.

Frankly, I think that the important thing is that the amount authorised in this connection for this year will go up by £5½ million, and that an additional £200,000 will be made available to the voluntary bodies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what application has been made under Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, by the owners of the Douglas and Angus Estates, for funds to meet the cost of restoring the land at Happendon Castle, Douglas, which was a war-time camp and training area, is still littered with ruined buildings and is now under consideration as a suitable site for urgently-needed new industry.

As far as I am aware, no such application has been made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Home, the members of whose family are, I understand, the owners of the limited liability company, Douglas and Angus Estates, to the opportunities that exist for such a grant? Would it not be a very great pity if it came to the pitch where the local planning authority had to exert pressure far improvements to be made that were necessary to attract industry to this part of Lanarkshire, which so desperately needs it?

I am quite sure that my noble Friend will see what the hon. Lady has said. I understand that the local planning authority is, at the moment, considering whether to zone this area far industrial use.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Taxation regarding the repeal of Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

I recognise that this Section gives rise to some anomalies, and I will keep the question of its repeal under review.

How long does my hon. Friend intend to continue keeping this matter under review? Is he not aware that, however much he may be under fire at the Treasury, the war referred to in this Section ended long ago? Is it reasonable that tax relief for expenses for travelling to and from work should be given to one part of the community because of changes in war time, while the rest of the community is denied that relief?

I see the force of my hon. Friend's point with regard to this Section considered in isolation, but the object of the Section is quite different from the object of some of my right hon. Friends with regard to a general tax allowance for travelling. That raises much wider questions and, indeed, I think I am right in saying that there are new Clauses about it on the Notice Paper for the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect his financial policy with respect to universities will have on planned capital development at Leeds University.

The non-recurrent grants available for allocation by the University Grants Committee for capital development in the universities are based on the four-year building programme announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in January, 1961, which has not been modified. The allocation of these grants as between one university and another is a matter entirely at the discretion of the University Grants Committee.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that Sir Charles Morris, Chancellor of Leeds University, said last week that the Government's policy would mean that the planned programme for the growth of Leeds University in the next five years might be brought to a halt before it was half completed? How does that square with what he has just said?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced some eighteen months ago that the amount of building starts that could be authorised in the next four years would be well over 50 per cent. higher than the starts made in the past four years, but the precise allocation of the moneys available as between one university and another is not a matter for me; it is entirely the responsibility of the University Grants Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which London medical schools have applied through the University Court to the University Grants Committee for funds to set up departments of virology; and what has been the result.

These are matters entirely within the responsibilities of the University Grants Committee and the University of London. It would be a breach of the established relationship between the Government and the universities if I were to inquire into them.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that virology is one of the growing branches of medicine, and that at least one London teaching hospital— Guy's— has been trying desperately to set up such a department; that it has the skilled professional staff available, and needs only the financial support of the University Grants Committee, which it cannot get as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's policies?

I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in the universities and in the medical schools. I have myself in years past been a member of the Court of London University, and I am absolutely clear that it would be quite wrong for the Government to interfere in the work of the Court of the University of London, or in decisions taken by the University Grants Committee in regard to that body.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what total sums of compensation money would have to be refunded to officers formerly in the India and Burma Services if the Treasury were to revert, without any subsequent interpretations, to the terms of the statement made by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 24th February, 1949, to the effect that two years had been fixed for the period within which the obtaining of an alternative career in the form of permanent and pensionable employment under Her Majesty's Government would entail forfeiture of compensation.

Of the £190,000 compensation which has been refunded by officers of the Indian and Burman Services since 1948–49, it is estimated that about half has been refunded under the interpretation to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would seem, from the figures which he has been kind enough to give me, that the abandonment altogether of the two-year rule might involve the repayment of about £200,000 in compensation while to return the compensation to officers who actually obtained employment after the end of the two-year rule would apparently cost only about £20,000? Not only does it seem that there is a serious misunderstanding here, but it appears that a serious injustice may have been done to a small number of men. In view of this, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into this matter again?

If there has been any misunderstanding between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself I will do my utmost to remove it, but if he is asking that we should treat in a different way people who entered the Government service within two years and those who now have exactly the same pension rights, I certainly could not agree to that.

Would not the Chief Secretary agree that the extra pension for those involved in the United Kingdom service is very small compared with the amount of compensation surrendered? Does he realise that there is strong feeling on both sides of the House about this matter?

There is a further Question on the Notice Paper on this subject but it is concerned with people who entered the public service in an unestablished capacity and were then offered establishment. It was really for them to consider, in the light of all the factors involved, whether or not they would wish to accept establishment and pension.

Why is this rule applied to members of the previous Indian Civil Service when, after seven- teen years, they are offered permanent employment? Surely that is against the whole tenor of the regulation at the time?

I think that I should be anticipating a further Question if I answered that supplementary question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the abolition of the present system of taxing football pools and greyhound racing and instituting a system of a 2 per cent. tax payable on all forms of betting, gaming and gambling, however and wherever carried on; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made as to the best method of instituting a general and equally applied betting tax.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestions, but I am unable to make any further statement at the present time.

That is the sort of reply we keep on getting. Is is not grossly unfair that those who bet on football pools pay 30 per cent. tax and those who bet on greyhound racing by the totalisator pay 10 per cent. while no other person betting, gaming or gambling in any other way pays any tax at all? If we had a fair tax on all forms of betting and gambling a lot of money would accrue to the Revenue, the tax could be reduced and no one would have any grievance?

This is the sort of question I keep on getting from the hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that only the other day we discussed the level of duty on football pools at some length. Again, with regard to the Pool Betting Duty on greyhound racing and the countervailing duty imposed on bookmakers, these are matters which may come up in debate if we discuss a new Clause— I think it is in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis)— which is on the Notice Paper.

In view of the new forms of gambling—bingo, chemin de fer and betting shops—which have been introduced by the 1960 Act, would not my hon. Friend agree that the discriminatory tax on greyhound racing is now even more unfair than when it was first introduced fourteen years ago? Will he not now consider introducing a review of gambling taxation as a whole with a view to it falling more fairly on all these different types of gambling interests?

I said the other day in the debate that most certainly further consideration would be given to this subject before next year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite simple for the Treasury, it would appear, to put a tax on sweets and yet it seems to be against putting a tax on betting? Is it not possible to have a form of calculating machine in every type of betting shop to cover every type of bet so that, when the tax is deducted, the person making the bet receives a slip on which is stated the amount of the tax which has been deducted? The Inland Revenue could then collect it once a week or once a quarter. What argument is there against that?

I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in direct and indirect taxes, respectively, between 1950 and 1961, including in indirect taxes the amount paid in National Health and Insurance contributions; and what, during this period, was the percentage increase in the gross national product.

In money terms, the increase in indirect taxes levied by the central Government, together with National Insurance and Health contributions, was 79 per cent. between 1950 and 1961. The increase in direct taxes on income and capital was 67 per cent. and in gross national product 102 per cent.

Does not that reply show that, contrary to what the Financial Secretary has been trying to prove in Committee on the Finance Bill, the Government are, in fact, taking an increasingly larger share of the national income in the form of poll taxes on the whole population, largely in the form of progressive direct taxation? As the Economic Secretary tries to correct that figure by bringing in last year's Budget, will he bring in this year's Budget as well?

I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might refer to the observations of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and I can assure him that there is no inconsistency between what my hon. Friend said and what I have said. One cannot consider this matter of National Health Service contributions in isolation from the increased benefits received. The increase in National Health and Insurance contributions has been more than matched in percentage terms by the rise in the corresponding National Insurance benefits. Furthermore, the cost of the National Health Service almost doubled in the period in question. This country much prefers what this Government have done to the Opposition's action in imposing a ceiling on expenditure in the National Health Service.

If the Economic Secretary really believes that, will he ask the Prime Minister to put it to the test to see if the country really prefers what this Government are doing? On the particular question, however, would the Economic Secretary tell us whether the ratio he has given would be the same if taxation of company profits were excluded from the calculation? Or would it not show that the proportion being taken in direct taxation, especially from those earning less than £20 a week, has increased very substantially?

My answer referred to direct taxation of both income and capital. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a detailed Question, I will provide the figures.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is withholding the repayment of Pool Betting Duty which was subsequently held by the courts to have been wrongly claimed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; by what authority repayment has been withheld; and how much money is involved in this matter.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Stockport County judgment. This resulted in Pool Betting Duty being repaid in respect of subsequent competitions which were similar to those which formed the basis of the judgment, but it did not require repayment of duty paid on earlier competitions. After a review of all the circumstances in which this duty was paid, no reason is seen to make repayment in such cases.

Why does not the Economic Secretary answer the last part of the Question and tell the House how much money is involved? Is it not a serious matter that, when a High Court judgment declares that the Government have been getting money out of football pools on a large scale illegally, the Government refuse point blank to pay it back to the people who paid it? Would not any ordinary individual be in gross contempt of court if he did the same, and will the Government give further serious consideration to the matter so that the law of the country can be maintained?

No authority is needed for withholding repayment. On the contrary, no case for repayment has been made out. Regarding the last part of the Question concerning the amount of money involved, it is not possible to give any precise answer because, of course, it depends on the facts of each case. Claims received and refused approach £2 million, but if all such competitions were entitled to repayment the amount. could be several times larger.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new consideration he has given to the need for a freeze on profits and dividends as a means of helping to deal with inflation and economic problems.

My right hon. and learned Friend has asked for continued restraint in profits and dividends. He does not think that a freeze "on individual companies would be desirable or practicable.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that many of us are of the opinion that he has a unilateral mind— a one-way street— when dealing with inflation? He is attacking the workers, but has his attention been drawn to the fact that landowners are increasing the price of their land, property owners are substantially increasing their rents and moneylenders and banks are increasing their rates? Is he not aware that this is an arrogant organised body which is using its political power to gain a bigger share of the national wealth?

The only unilateral feature of the situation at present is that wages and salaries increased materially last year whereas profits fell.

How does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reconcile that Answer with the Chancellor's repeated statements that his wages policy has been a success? The two things surely are contradictory. [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] If wages and salaries have increased, how can the policy have been a success at the same time? The whole object of the policy is to keep wages and salaries down. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of living has increased during the last twelve months by 6 per cent? How does he hope to get people to accept an increase in wages limited to 2½ per cent?

One of the reasons for my right hon. Friend's policy and his measures of last July was the excessive rise in wages and salaries in the earlier part of the year. It is that rise which is the main cause of the increase in the cost of living this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last answer is wholly inaccurate and that the chief causes of the rise in the cost of living are Government measures, through the Rent Act, through increases in electricity charges as a result of their instruction, through increases in prices brought about by the regulator, and in a number of other ways? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the Government who are responsible for putting up prices today?

That is entirely untrue and I would recommend the hon. Member to examine the facts.

If any controls are needed in the private sector, would not my right hon. Friend agree that far the best method would be to lower tariffs and bring in greater competition?

That is certainly one of the courses that require consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts of the recurrent grants proposed for the University of Keele for each year of the forthcoming quinquennium; what increases in student numbers were originally allowed for by the University Grants Committee; what increases are provided for in these grants; and to what extent these grants allow for further increases in the salary scales of university staffs.

The matters referred to in the first three parts of the question are entirely within the responsibility of the University Grants Committee, and it is not for me to announce or comment on the amounts of recurrent grants allocated by them to individual universities. In reply to the fourth part, additions are made to recurrent grants when the salaries of university teaching staffs are increased.

Does not the Treasury take any responsibility for the results of this action? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the University Grants Committee specially requested the University of Keele to provide an extra 400 university places in the next five years? Is he aware that the consequence of the financial strait-jacket put on the University Grants Committee by the Treasury is that already this young university has had to impose a 75 per cent. cut on its rate of expansion? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the terrible disappointment that this causes in a new university? Would he reconsider the matter with the University Grants Committee?

The hon. Member will not tempt me to make any comments on the ways in which the University Grants Committee, in the discretion given to it by this House, decides to allocate grants as between one university and another. I am answerable to the House for the total amount made available to the University Grants Committee and I am prepared to defend the Government's policy on that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the recurrent grant for 1962–63 now to be made to the University of Keele will permit only one-quarter of the increase in student numbers which had been planned; and, in the light of the need and demand for more university places, if he will review the amount of this grant.

No, Sir. I should not be justified in reviewing an individual allocation made by the University Grants Committee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly investigate on what understanding between the Treasury and the University Grants Committee that Committee asked the University of Keele to provide extra university places for which the Treasury now refuses to provide the money? Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for this situation and investigate and discuss it with the University Grants Committee?

The hon. Member can have it one way, but he cannot have it both ways. As long as it is understood that the University Grants Committee has discretion in these matters and acts as a barrier to protect universities against interference by Parliament, I will not pursue in detail the sort of inquiries that the hon. Member desires.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the main fault here is that insufficient money is being granted to the universities to make more places possible? Is he not aware that in answer to a Question of mine only a fortnight ago he said that in 1964–65 the number of places will be one in twenty for the relevant age group? When will the right hon. Gentleman give more money to the U.G.C. so as to enable more places to be made available?

The Government are giving over the next quinquennium an increase of no less than 55 per cent, in their grants to accommodate, I hope, an increase of 35 per cent, in the number of university students.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, deliberately or otherwise, he is missing the question which he has been asked? An increase of a certain number in places has been planned, but the Government are making available money which will permit only a much smaller increase. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is withholding the money for the number of places that the Government planned should be made available?

It is not for the Government to say how many places should be made available. What the Government are doing is to make available a sum of money which will increase by 55 per cent, over the next five years and to express the hope that the universities will be able to use that money to accommodate 35 per cent. more students.

asked the Prime Minister what information he now has about the length of the present series of United State nuclear tests; and what estimate has been made of the cost of United Kingdom participation.

As I said on 8th May, President Kennedy has stated that this test series will be concluded within two or three months of its inception, which was on 25th April. The total cost of United Kingdom participation is likely to be of the order of £350,000.

Would it not appear, therefore, that our costs in this enterprise will be very small compared with the return which we shall receive? If tests are to go on and are necessary, it would appear that this joint enterprise will be a laudable and profitable one to the Americans and to this country. Could not the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, emphasise a point which he hesitatingly made in the debate on 15th May—that because of the possible success of joint testing it may not be necessary for us again to test our weapons on our own?

Of course we all hope that the tests will be brought to an end. It is true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that compared with the small sums we are spending, chiefly on scientific instrumentation and personnel, we shall have an equal share in the scientific results.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to a proposal made in Geneva by the Mexican Government delegate that the three neutral Governments should fix a date beyond which there would be no nuclear testing. The delegate proposed 1st January, 1963. Is that acceptable also to Her Majesty's Government?

No, Sir, not at the moment, but of course this and all other proposals will be considered, because it is our purpose, if we can, to try to find a method by which these tests can be brought to an end.

asked the Prime Minister what assessment has now been made of the likelihood of fall-out of strontium 90 from the Russian series of nuclear tests coinciding with the short-term fall-out of radio iodine from the present United States nuclear explosions; and what estimate has been made of the resultant effect on living organisms.

While it is possible that these two types of fall-out may reach this country simultaneously, the isotopes in question have such different characteristics that their coincidence would have little biological significance, and would not appreciably increase any risk to health which otherwise might be caused. As I stated in my replies of 8th May, there is no reason to suppose that either short-term or long-term fall-out will reach any serious level as a result of the American tests.

I am obliged to the Prime Minister for that relieving Answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Russians intend to go ahead with a fresh series of tests and the French have in mind continuing their tests as well, there is at least a possibility of coincidental fall-out from the tests conducted by the nuclear Powers, irrespective of Whether it be long-term or short-term fall-out? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that, even if the Russians blatantly go ahead ignoring these facts, the Western Powers, if they have to test again, will take this matter into consideration and plan their testing to reduce the hazard to a minimum?

This has not yet happened and, therefore, I cannot answer that question. To answer the Question on the Paper, which I was not able to answer when it was asked as a supplementary question, I have ascertained that the biological action of these two radioisotopes is so distinct that their coincidence is not of importance.

Is the Prime Minister now taking the attitude that these tests are comparatively harmless? If so, why are not they held over America?

I am answering the Question on the Order Paper, which I was not able to answer When it was asked as a supplementary question, as to the precise effect of the coincidence of different types of isotopes. I hope that I have, after taking advice, satisfactorily answered that Question.

What are isotopes?

In answering that, I remind my hon. Friend of something equally important, that we release representative figures regularly of gross beta activity in air, and the figures of pico-curies per kilogram of air are, on the whole, satisfactory.

asked the Prime Minister what matters he intends to discuss with General de Gaulle; and whether he will inform him that Her Majesty's Government will not depart from the commitments to the Commonwealth, with particular reference to the safeguarding of Commonwealth exports of food and raw materials, in order to secure Britain's entry to the European Economic Community.

asked the Prime Minister which issues he proposes to discuss at his meeting with General de Gaulle next month.

I expect that we shall have a general review of the problems which concern our two countries. As regards Commonwealth interests, I would refer to what I said in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) on Tuesday.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to widespread reports that General de Gaulle will ask for the provision of nuclear secrets? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to provide nuclear secrets to France as part of the price for our joining the European Economic Community? On Commonwealth exports, may I ask whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to insist upon Commonwealth countries having comparable and permanent safeguards for their goods in Europe?

On the second part of that supplementary question, I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 16th May, a detailed note on which he circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I am not responsible for newspaper reports.

But could not the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no agreement with General de Gaulle to provide him with nuclear information in exchange for an easing of the terms of entry into the Common Market?

My discussions with General de Gaulle will be confidential and I do not wish to be drawn into this or that statement. The hon. Member knows, of course, the terms upon which British nuclear information has been obtained from the American Government.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Members of the House of Lords, who have no constituency expenses or correspondence similar to Members of the House of Commons, receive £3 3s. a day attendance money, whether he will initiate a similar scheme for Members of the House of Commons to enable them to meet the rising cost of the expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out their duties to their constituents.

No, Sir. The maximum allowance of three guineas a day available to peers who are not remunerated for their services enables them to recover expenses incurred in attendance at the House of Lords. Quite different conditions apply to Members of this House.

It is because there are quite different conditions that I put the Question down. I do not wish in any way to interfere with what the other House receives, but may I ask if the Prime Minister is aware that the other House does not have the day-to-day expenses which a Member of Parliament has in maintaining necessary expenditure incurred in carrying out his duties to his constituents? Is it not unfair that Members of Parliament who have to maintain two homes and other expenses—[Interruption.] Is it not unfair, when Members of Parliament must maintain their hotel expenses here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is it not unfair—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, if you yourself will not ask hon. Members to keep quiet, I must wait until I can get my Question in.

Oh.

Order. In the general interest, let there be less noise so that we can get on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should not like to be drawn into a consideration of the domestic difficulties or complications of either commoners or peers to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I remind the House that we did have this system, or a system not dissimilar, called, I think, the sessional allowance, and I believe that it was the general view of the House that that had better be abolished and concentrated in a single salary. I think that the House as a whole prefers that system.

As an alternative, would the Prime Minister consider giving certain hon. Members three guineas a day for not coming here?

I am sure that the usual channels would be very ready to arrange that.

asked the Prime Minister if he has yet received a request for the dispatch of troops to Thailand.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a request for the sending of British Forces to Thailand.

Following joint consideration by the British Government and the Thai Government, we have now been invited to dispatch a contingent to Thailand and, as I informed the House on 17th May, we consider that a squadron of the Royal Air Force would be the most suitable contribution. The arrangements for the reception of the squadron are now being discussed with the Thai Government.

Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Government spokesman in the course of the debate this afternoon to disclose the terms of the request from the Thai Government and also the date on which it was received by the United Kingdom Government? Will the Government spokesman at the same time produce the evidence in support of the contention that it was the intention of the Pathet Lao forces to commit an act of aggression against Thailand?

Without going into the details, perhaps I ought to say now that, when a special meeting of the S.E.A.T.O. Council representatives met on 16th May, the Thai representative drew attention to the communiqué issued by the Thai Prime Minister the previous day which stated that the circumstances following the fall of Nam Tha—I quote his words—

"constitute a threat to the Kingdom of Thailand and the safety of the Thai people".

Is it not true that the statement that the Thai Government was in danger from an act of aggression was initiated by the American Central Intelligence Agency in the first instance, and will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in the interests of propriety and sincerity in matters of this sort, to produce evidence to justify the contention that the Pathet Lao forces intended an act of aggression?

No, Sir. This will be debated, but I think that I ought to say that great tension was caused by the flagrant breach of the cease-fire by the Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese allies at Nam Tha. Reference to the map and the long exposed frontier of Thailand and the difficulties of Thailand will show, I think. that it is not unnatural that the Thai Government felt that the arrival of some stabilising forces would be of great assistance to them, and as allies we have thought it right to respond to their request.

Can the Prime Minister say whether there is a shred of evidence that there is any threat to Thailand? Secondly, can he say whether the tortuous negotiations and hesitations of the past week have been due to the fact that the Government have been trying to disguise that the initial request for the sending of British troops to Thailand actually came from the President of the United States?

No, Sir; the hon. Member has twisted and misrepresented the situation. We have tried to do two things: to add our part in what we hope will be a stabilising effect upon the Thai people and Government, and—the second half of it—to pursue, as we have done with every possible effort, the formation of a neutral Government and an agreement by which Laos can itself become a neutral country. I feel that some progress—in fact, considerable progress—has been made, and our hopes are that this, after a long delay, will now be accomplished.

The House and the country will appreciate the fact that the object of sending British troops in addition to the American forces is to try to achieve a stabilising element in Thailand, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Prime Minister of Thailand has laid claim to Greater Thailand, which includes the southern area of Laos? Will he also bear in mind that the Commander of the Royal Army of Laos is a nephew of his? Will he therefore tell the House his intentions about the situation in Laos?

Whose nephew?

We welcome what the Prime Minister says about the need to get a neutral Government in Laos and recognise that this matter is to be dated later today. However, may I ask him two questions? First, will he make it quite plain, which I believe is the case, that the purpose of our contribution is to help Thailand and that under no circumstances will we get involved in Laos? Secondly, since Thailand feels herself threatened in this way, are the Government taking any steps to bring this to the attention of the Security Council or ensuring that other thought is given to it?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have stated the objective—to help to stabilise opinion, to keep things calm, and to give comfort to our allies in Thailand. With regard to the second part, the Secretary General of the United Nations is being informed of the action which Her Majesty's Government are taking. But it is not proposed at the moment to present the matter to the Security Council because the action taken is in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we shall want to debate his last statement as well as the whole issue in the following debate. In view of the statement by the Head of Government in Malaya last week, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us from where the squadron is coming, particularly since it has been stated that this squadron was recently in Thailand and was withdrawn from Thailand only a week or two ago and is now going back? Is that true?

This squadron was on an exercise some time ago, one of the many exercises carried out. It will be flown in from Singapore. Since this is to be debated, perhaps I can leave the more detailed questions for the debate.