asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement about the scope, purpose and personnel of the social science research council which he has set up.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is now able to make a statement on the establishment of a social sciences research council.

The Government have not set up a social science research council, and I cannot, for the present, add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) on 21st May, 1962.

If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot add anything after this long time, does he agree that it should be within the scope of any social science research council to stop the trend to the south of Britain, which is continuing the obnoxious policy of the clearances, which is depopulating the north of this island, which is overcrowding the south, and which is driving trade, industry and commerce to the south? Will he formulate and implement a really constructive policy which will reverse that very objectionable practice?

As I understand it, the duties of a social science research council in the minds of those who put it forward, would be to collate existing research and stimulate further research. I think that the actions which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind would be actions for the executive departments of the Government to undertake.

Has the Minister seen the very interesting discussions that have recently been going on in the Press on the formation of a social research council, most of those taking part supporting the idea? Is he aware of the growing interest in social science research which is demonstrated by the success of the new periodical, New Society?

I have seen New Society, and I am most heartened by the growing interest in the social sciences to which the hon. Member referred. The actual establishment by the Government of a social science research council goes beyond the Departmental responsibilities of my noble Friend, and would have to be a Government decision.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the terms of reference of the Committee on Civil Scientific Research include the problems involved in Government support of technological development.

This Committee is concerned with organisation, and so far as the problems concerned are, or cannot be dissociated from, organisational problems, they are within the terms of reference.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the existing Committee is sufficiently strong on the scientific and engineering side to be able to make the sort of recommendations concerning, for instance, development contracts in industry, and other ways of supporting more scientific industrial development which obviously is necessary?

The purpose of the Committee is to consider matters raised within its terms of reference. It is primarily a Committee to deal with the organisation that should exist between Government and science, and I think that its members are excellent people for this purpose.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what information he has about progress in finding a cure for multiple sclerosis; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what resources, in terms of money and manpower, are being devoted to research upon multiple sclerosis; and what progress is being made.

Research into multiple sclerosis is being supported from public funds by the Medical Research Council and by university and hospital departments. In addition, a valuable contribution is being made by voluntary organisations, such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Nuffield Foundation. A great deal of fundamental research which may prove relevant to the understanding of demyelinating diseases, is also being undertaken. I therefore regret that it would not be possible to estimate the expenditure and manpower involved in research relevant to this disease.

Progress in this research is, unfortunately, slow, but the problem is being attacked along several lines, and every effort will be made to follow up promising leads.

As it is clear from the Minister's answer that no cure is so far available in this country, and as there are pretty strong claims of a cure being available across the Channel, is it not possible for the Ministry to enable patients from this country to go abroad to get the treatment that is apparently available there?

With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, this would, of course, be a matter for my right hon. Friend tile Minister of Health. With regard to the Le Gac method, which involves the administration of antibiotic drugs, I can only tell the hon. Member that tests carried out in this country for evidence of infection by such organisms as the method presupposes in persons suffering from multiple sclerosis have so far been negative.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the promising ine of research being undertaken at Leeds and Newcastle, and urge him to implement the promise of Her Majesty's Government by giving more support to these two projects?

I am not aware of any worth-while line of study put forward by a first-class man in relation to the causes of this disease for which a grant applied for has not been granted. If my hon. Friend has any particular lines of approach in mind, I should be most happy to bring them to the notice of the Medical Research Council.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a very dreadful and a very painful disease? Apparently, he has at present no suggestions to make for approaching a treatment or a cure of the disease. Will he think over the matter again and, at a suitable time, make a statement in the House as to what steps are now being taken to do something about it?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is, if I may say so, quite wrong. The Medical Research Council is following up a number of leads. In 1961, it set up a research group on demyelinating diseases, and in the last 12 months has held no fewer than two conferences on these particular types of disease in order to provide leading research workers in different disciplines with the opportunity of discussion and exchange of views, out of which it is hoped further promising lines of research might appear.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what work is being undertaken by his Department in the field of productivity during the National Productivity Year.

Where work undertaken by the organisations for which my noble Friend is responsible has some bearing on productivity, these are cooperating with the organisers of National Productivity Year. Some time ago my noble Friend asked the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the organisation with the most direct bearing on the subject, to bear the objectives of National Productivity Year very closely in mind.

It is not sufficient just to bear the matter in mind. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are here possibilities of major breaks through in all fields of production; and that, if we do not do something far stronger than he has stated, Britain may well not be able to maintain or advance her standard of living in the future? Will he ensure that his Department does much more than just the mediocre work it is doing at present?

I do not think that we are doing work that is only mediocre, either in quantity or quality.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent his Department is co-operating with the National Foundation for Educational Research in promoting scientific training.

Research in education is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and its Committee on Scientific Manpower, have under regular review general issues concerning the training and education of scientific and technological manpower, and my noble Friend is in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on these matters.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, according to the 1960–61 Report, the grant to this Foundation was advanced from £3,000 to £7,000? Does he consider that, in the sphere of educational research, this is a reasonable contribution to such a body, when scientific and technological education is so important in this age?

That grant was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and the hon. Member must question my right hon. Friend about it.

Would it not be sensible for the hon. Gentleman's Department to have consultation with the National Foundation apropos some of the problems, so that the research organisation can consider what is in his Department's mind?

My noble Friend and my right hon. Friend keep in close and continuing consultation in this and kindred matters.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what has been the total expenditure this year on research, excluding space research and human sciences, by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; how this has been spent; and how this compares with similar expenditure in previous years.

The sums for which my hon. Friend has asked were for 1959–60, £11·1 million; for 1960–61, £13·3 million; for 1961–62, £15·2 million; for 1962–63—provision in Civil Estimates—£18·5 million. The provision in the 1962–63 Civil Estimates is, therefore, 66⅔ per cent. above actual expenditure in 1959–60. I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT a breakdown of these figures.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can state now how much of that expenditure has gone to research associations?

The annual payment to research associations has been about £2 million. The annual increase has been about 8 per cent.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary admit that both the first set of figures and the last figure he gave are painfully inadequate in view of the importance of science in the world today? How do those figures compare with expenditure in other countries?

It is very difficult to get exact comparisons with other countries, because virtually no other country has a body with exactly the same functions and limits as the D.S.I.R. The size of the grant to research associations is, of course, related to the contributions of the industrial firms for whose benefit the research associations exist.

Whilst I welcome the improvement that my hon. Friend has announced, may I ask him whether he would agree that before one can possibly assess the full measure of

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the highest power output, in megawatts, at which the fast breeder reactor at Dounreay has been operated; and how this compares with the output achieved by other reactors of the same type elsewhere in the world.

The highest power level reached by the Dounreay fast reactor is 30 megawatts (heat). I am the effort of this country, one must take into account the contribution of industry itself?

Yes, indeed. One should consider also the contributions of Government, through the defence Departments, to industrial research, and there is a later Question on that aspect.

In the figures that the Parliamentary Secretary is to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he give a column showing the figures at constant prices?

I am not sure that I can get out that information in time for publication in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, but I shall certainly see to its preparation, and send it to the hon. Member.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but would he tell us how much has gone to the grid and what the costs are likely to be when these experiments have been completed?

The aim is that this should be an experimental reactor, and any electricity actually produced is a by-product of its research purpose. So far, it is generating about 3 megawatts of electricity. I cannot tell my hon. Friend what the total cost of the Dounreay reactor will be by the time all the experimental work on it has ceased, because I think that it will remain a very fine experimental tool for a considerable number of years.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what investigations are being currently undertaken under his auspices into the importance of fatigue as a cause of industrial accidents.

The Medical Research Council is carrying out studies on the effects of fatigue as part of a wide programme of research on factors affecting the safety, comfort and efficiency of industrial workers. I will send the hon. Member details of these studies.

Does the research look particularly at the vast increase in juvenile accidents, and has it got any bearing on what responsible trade union leaders think—that there is a very great correlation between accidents and juvenile fatigue?

I cannot say, offhand, that it has a special emphasis on the juvenile problem, but that is, in fact, considered as part of the general problem among all-age groups.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what investigations are being undertaken under his auspices on how suitability for industrial employment is affected by age.

The Medical Research Council has supported for some years studies of the psychological changes that occur with age, with particular reference to the suitability of older workers for various types of industrial work. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is also supporting a research project concerned with the training of older workers.

Is sufficient publicity given to the fact that a good deal of nonsense is talked and thought about people being too old at 50? Do the investigations study the situations which arise in areas like mine, where a great many people, highly suitable for work, are faced with long periods of frustration because they are out of work at 50 or 55 through the closure of pits and so on?

Yes, indeed. In 1961, the Council issued a memorandum entitled, "Ageing and the semi-skilled. A survey of manufacturing industry on Merseyside". Although limited to Merseyside, the memorandum's conclusions are of wide application. A major finding was that the slowing down of older workers was widely held by knowledgeable people in industry to be largely compensated for by their skill, experience and conscientiousness.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many horticultural research establishments the Minister for Science and he have visited since they took up their appointments, and how many more they plan to visit before the end of this year.

The 18 agricultural research institutes and units which have been visited by my noble Friend or myself include four of the centres at which research relevant to horticulture is carried out. No further visits are planned for the remainder of this year, but we hope to make further visits in future.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he and his noble Friend are paying sufficient attention to the important requirements of horticulture?

Yes. The fact that we have not visited stations does not mean that we do not take any interest in them. Equally, there is an enormous number of agricultural, industrial, medical and other research establishments which come under my noble Friend indirectly through the research councils, and the Atomic Energy Authority, and there are often important problems at those stations which necessitate our having to visit them and not others.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what sums have been spent on scientific and other research for the benefit of horticulture in each year for the past 10 years; what plans he has for increasing this research effort in the future; and how widely and quickly the results of research are made known to growers.

With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables showing Government expenditure, in each of the past 10 years, on research concerned with horticulture which is carried out at those Government research stations which are primarily concerned with horticulture, as well as at the experimental horticulture stations of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and at Colleges of Agriculture in Scotland. In addition, research of direct or indirect benefit to horticulture is carried out at other stations and units of the Agricultural Research Council. Some expansion of this research is being undertaken, including the establishment of a new Unit of Flower Crop Physiology. The results of research are disseminated regularly through scientific and horticultural publications, through the Agricultural Advisory Services, and through open days and membership schemes organised by stations and institutes.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient practical, useful information comes from these centres and is put over to our growers in simple language? As my hon. Friend is aware, horticulture is built up of many small units and it is important that this matter should be put over to the small agriculturalists and the small growers simply. Is this being done?

It is impossible with so variegated an industry, in which the individual grower occupies so important a position, for all growers to be able to visit the stations of the Agricultural Research Council, and the A.R.C., therefore, has to rely very largely on the N.A.A.S. to disseminate the results of its research to the individual grower.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for increasing the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence in relation to the other Service Ministries.

The organisation of the defence departments is under constant review, and I would of course inform the House of any decision to make a change.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us—and apparently the Estimates Committee—feel that there is a good deal to be said for increasing the co-ordinating powers of the Minister of Defence, so that there can be a pooling of the common services used by the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, not excluding headquarters? Is he also aware that we feel that, in view of the pooling of resources that takes place overseas, in N.A.T.O. and other alliances, it would seem reasonable that we should introduce a similar kind of pooling at home?

These are very important aspects of a large question, which is not easy to deal with by way of question and answer.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this matter has been under constant review for many years—even when he was Minister of Defence? In spite of the talk about co-ordination, is not the Prime Minister aware that this so-called co-ordination is most ineffective? Before the Defence Estimates come before the House early next year, will not he consider giving this matter more careful consideration, so that we may witness more effective coordination and, perhaps, integration, in these three Services?

I will take into account what the right hon Gentleman says, because he has great experience in these matters. But there have been successive advances. As to the larger question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he would expect me to make a statement in answer to a supplementary question.

As we have had 10 Ministers of Defence in the last 11 years, does the Prime Minister think that we can get any co-ordination?

I understood that the Question was related to functions rather than to personalities.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent mission to India, with particular reference to the possibility of economic help being supplied from under-utilised resources in Northern Ireland, north-east England, and Scotland.

The mission led by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary went to India to consider the situation arising out of the Chinese aggression, and to assess India's military requirements. In considering the question of further economic assistance towards India's third Five-Year Plan we shall certainly keep in mind all relevant factors.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that the third Five-Year Plan is as great a priority as military aid? Will he consider these unorthodox steps in order to bring immediate help? Is it not clear that many of the products that the third Indian Five-Year Plan needs are manufactured on the North-East Coast, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland?

I quite understand the possibilities of this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to it in the debate on the Address, in a sentence which I will quote. He said:

"I should be inclined to look a little more generously at a request for aid if the products that the people receiving the aid were going to buy were something that we could provide from our existing spare capacity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 636.]

That principle will be borne in mind.

Is not the extra economic aid that we should all like to give to India and the depressed parts of this country conditioned by our ability to export more? Secondly, is not the question of exports one over which no Government, of whatever colour, has any control whatever?

The ability to give aid and to keep the balance of payments right depends upon our general exporting position, but the Question is related to another possibility. As hon. Members know, a great deal of the aid programmes us not in terms of free money but is related to certain products manufactured in this country. What is now further proposed is the question whether, in taking account of the necessity to provide more aid, we should have regard to areas where there is spare capacity and bear them in mind. That I undertake to do.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the fact that, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations told us that one of the consequences of the Chinese aggression in India will be a slowing down of essential Indian economic progress. Will the Prime Minister therefore consider what help we can give, and whether, in giving that help, we can link it up, as my hon. Friend has suggested, with help to our own depressed areas? Would not that be a good thing to do?

That is exactly what I have just said.

asked the Prime Minister if he will move to amend the Resolution of the House of 14th November so as to require the Tribunal to give particular consideration to the circumstances under which confidential information relating to the Vassall case was given by or on behalf of a Minister to a Lobby correspondent accredited to the House: and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on 20th November.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was a detailed and apparently carefully premeditated allegation that secret information relating to the Vassall case had been communicated to a Lobby correspondent who had betrayed the secrecy of the case and published it and had been removed from the Lobby? It was made in a long speech with an incivility unbecoming to the Civil Lord and a loquacity inappropriate to the Silent Service, and the only explanation given subsequently was that perhaps he was mistaken in one or other of his facts. Surely this is a matter for some action by the Government.

I thought that this particular matter had been dealt with.

No.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Tribunal will do nothing to upset the relationships which exist between the Lobby and Members of this House which are based on trust and mutual confidence?

Yes, Sir.

Since the right hon. Gentleman, through the terms of reference, instructed the Tribunal to look into certain cases of alleged leakages to the Press, may I ask whether he would take very seriously the point in this Question that other leakages, not embarrassing but helpful to the Government but nevertheless bad, should also be looked into?

I do not think that it would be practicable to change the terms of reference of the Tribunal and I am quite confident that Lord Radcliffe will carry out this work in a satisfactory manner.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will offer to give evidence to the Tribunal appointed by Resolution of the House on Wednesday, 14th November, 1962.

I am naturally prepared to give evidence to the Tribunal if I am requested to do so.

Does the Prime Minister agree that he has a duty over and above waiting for a summons from the Tribunal? After all, he is certainly covered in the terms of reference, for he has an overall responsibility for security in this country. Surely one of the things which the Tribunal must do is to establish whether the Prime Minister himself has carried out his duties with sufficient competence.

On that assumption it would appear to come within the terms of reference of the Tribunal.

On a point of order. The terms of reference of the Resolution of the House ion 14th November refer in (4) to

"any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 523.]

Surely, here the Prime Minister must himself realise the burden of his responsibility and should be the first to volunteer. Is the Prime Minister aware that only last Thursday I did my best to see that no cost would fall on him or the Conservative Party if he wished to be defended by counsel?

The hon. Member has this wrong. If it be assumed that the Prime Minister is a person directly or indirectly responsible for the employment of the particular individual and his conduct and so forth, all that would be part of the circumstances of the Vassall case referred to the Tribunal.

Must we not be careful not to take this rule impossibly far? How can it possibly reflect on the Tribunal to suggest that an hon. Member or the Prime Minister should volunteer to give evidence? We are not referring to their being called. This cannot specifically be reflecting upon the Tribunal in any way. It is not dealing with the Tribunal's responsibility. It deals with the Prime Minister's responsibility.

It was for that very reason, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, that the Question appeared on the Order Paper. It is proper to ask whether a person will volunteer to appear but when it comes to the range of responsibility I think it comes under the rule.

On a point of order. The fact that the Question was on the Order Paper means that it was accepted, and that surely establishes the fact that it is in order for the Prime Minister to answer whether he himself feels that the burden of his responsibility has been such that he must offer to give evidence. Surely the House has the right to know that, because once we can establish that we can seek to get the Resolution amended to bring the Prime Minister within its terms, assuming, of course, that he wants to give evidence.

The view which I take—I think that it strictly follows the Ruling which I gave the other day in general—is that it is perfectly all right to ask someone whether he will volunteer to give evidence, but if the question goes on to say that he ought to volunteer because he has certain responsibilities, then one is embarking upon the field of what has been referred to the Tribunal. That is the distinction.

In that case, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can understand why hon. Members opposite want to dodge this. This is, surely, a matter for the Prime Minister. He set the Tribunal up. He laid down the terms of reference. He can amend them. We are now asking him whether he feels the burden of responsibility so as to offer to give evidence to the Tribunal; and if not, why not?

I understand the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I have ruled about it. That is the view which I take.

Mr. Speaker, does not your Ruling cut across the admission of the Question? The Question is admitted, and it asks the Prime Minister, not anyone else but the man who is responsible for the security services, whether he will give evidence. The right hon. Gentleman happens also to be the man who made attacks on some of us.

The Question having been admitted, you now rule, Mr. Speaker, that we may not ask the Prime Minister about his responsibility for the security services. Is not this, in a way, giving us by the admission of a Question one thing and taking it away from us by a later Ruling? Can we possibly be refused the opportunity to question the Prime Minister about evidence which he has to give just because the Tribunal has been set up?

The difficulty is simply this. I cannot quote verbatim the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) which caused me to give a Ruling, but what has been referred to the Tribunal are the circumstances in which offences under the Act were committed by the named individuals—prima facie, that comprises the responsibility of all those concerned with security matters in relation to that case—and the four particularised items which included any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for the employment and conduct of that individual and for his being treated as suitable for employment.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question went straight into that area.

May I ask you to consider this question, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the sub judice rule is very important but it would, I submit, be wrong to take it too far. Is it not the case that the sub judice rule means not that one may not make references to a tribunal or court but that one must not make improper references? If we take the rule so far as it seems that you are doing, Mr. Speaker, in this last Ruling, is it not taken so far that we deprive ourselves of rights which we ought to have? Clearly, any improper reference to what the Tribunal ought to do or to the subject matter before it would be wrong, but to extend the rule to the point where one may not make any reference at all to anything in connection with the Tribunal is going further than any court would go in enforcing its own sub judice rule, is it not?

I have not intended to widen in any way the Ruling which I gave the other day. What I think is sub judice, as I have said, is that which, according to the terms of the Resolution, we have referred to the Tribunal. The only problem which thereupon arises is whether or not the particular supplementary question on which I ruled is one which goes into the field of those terms of reference. I will look at it again. I should certainly like to consider the actual words used by the hon. Gentleman because, obviously, one has to work rather fast at Question Time. I did indicate, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will remember, that my Ruling the other day would inevitably involve me in having to rule on a number of peripheral matters. The difficulty is increased in this case because the terms of reference to the Tribunal were particularly wide. It is peripheral matter of that kind on which I have ruled.

If the Prime Minister does volunteer to appear before the Tribunal, will he be represented by the Attorney-General or, if not, by whom?

I think that that matter is not really very difficult. I have no doubt whatever that, if Lord Radcliffe feels that I can give any evidence of value to him, he will ask me to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Ministers concerned to devise means of moderating the unemployment situation which has developed in Scotland.

The Government are deeply concerned about this. A great deal has already been done to help. Scotland will of course benefit from the expansionary measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is receiving substantial help in Local Employment assistance and increasing public investment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman, even by a nod of his head in the proper direction, answer the Question? Will he instruct Ministers, as suggested in the Question, to devise means?

I do not quite know what the hon. Member's experience—