asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what action he is taking to promote food research and development, and to ensure that the results are applied to the public benefit.

As the full Answer is rather long I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As the Minister acquiesced in closing down the Aberdeen laboratory and the experimental factory that did a good deal of pioneering work in connection with freeze-drying of food, and as the work on dehydration has been lost, can he say what steps the Government intend to take to bridge the gap between the purely scientific investigation and the food industry generally? There does not seem to be anything now.

There is definitely a link. The food research associations under the D,S.I.R. are in constant communication with their respective industries and, on the purely biological side, the Agricultural Research Council is in touch with farmers through the N.A.A.S.

Does the Minister realise that the preparation for research of that kind, and other forms of research, is being greatly prejudiced and undermined by the Government's vindictive, savage, ignorant, anti-educational—

Order. We have no hope of getting more Questions answered if we have supplementary questions of that kind.

May I ask my supplementary question without an adjective, Mr. Speaker?

No.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the International Quiet Sun Year programme.

A co-ordinated programme of research has been arranged by the Royal Society's British National Committee for Co-operation in Geophysics, and comprises work at Government research establishments, work at Halley Bay, Antarctica, and work at universities.

May we have some assurance from the Minister that the results of this work will be co-ordinated and used rather better than appears to have been the case with some of the findings from the International Geophysical Year—as a result of which there seems to be a great deal of data which is not being used for any purpose, so far as can be ascertained?

That is our earnest hope.

On a point of order. In reference to Question No. 1, if you objected to the adjectives I used, Mr. Speaker, you should surely have allowed me to ask my supplementary question without the use of adjectives.

I hope that the hon. and learned Member will be kind enough to realise that I am under considerable pressure from the House to ensure that more Questions are answered. That means that all of us, or many of us—myself included—will have to change our habits.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to prescribe or recommend the use of the centigrade scale of temperatures to replace the Fahrenheit scale in documents presented to this House and in official publications.

No, Sir. There is no present intention of changing the practice of using whichever scale is more suitable or convenient for the particular purpose.

I recognise the tremendous advantage in the centigrade scale in the scientific sphere, but would it not be a good thing to have some central direction as to which scale is to be used in official documents? We have had the Fahrenheit scale used in one Bill and the cenitigrade'scale used in another, for purposes which are substantially similar. Would it not be a good thing for the Government to take the lead in this matter, rather than leave it to the Air Ministry or the Meteorological Office to do so?

At the moment it seems to us best to use on each occasion whichever scale is likely to be more acceptable to the people concerned, but I will note my hon. Friend's views.

Is the Minister aware that, since I raised this matter in connection with weather forecasts three weeks ago, I have had a tremendous number of letters, including three this morning by the 12 o'clock post, from Hampshire, Kent and Cornwall, agreeing with my suggestion? Is there any truth in the letter I have seen this morning, written by the Anti-centigrade Society, in which it says that it gathers that the present proposal is to drop Fahrenheit altogether in May?

The latter part of the supplementary question could not he in order.

May I put it the other way? Is there any truth in the report that the Government are proposing to drop Fahrenheit in May?

Any questions relating to the Meteorological Office must be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what initiatives he is taking for inter-disciplinary cooperation in science.

My noble Friend is well aware that some of the most significant scientific research work in recent years has been carried out on the borders between several scientific disciplines. The organisations for which my noble Friend is responsible, particularly the Research Grants Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, are anxious to support worthwhile research projects of this kind, and the work of the Research Councils and the Atomic Energy Authority often demands close collaboration between scientists of many different disciplines. But, of course, the conception of inter-disciplinary research projects is for the scientists themselves, and the initiative must inevitably rest with them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Can he give the House an assurance that scientists are not inhibited in any way in the development of their work in this interdisciplinary field by lack of funds?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is capable of a straightforward Yes "or" No "answer, because the worth-whileness of an individual project must always have a subjective element in the decision.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what additional financial assistance is being given to biological research.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will implement the proposals of the Royal Society's report on biological research which was appended to Command Paper No. 1920.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what additional financial assistance is being given to research in biology, as a result of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Royal Society on Biology.

As will be seen from the recently-published Estimates, the expenditure of the three research councils which support work in the biological field will, subject to the approval of Parliament, increase by 15 per cent. in 1963–64. Matters of organisation are still under consideration by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. As regards school curricula for biological students, I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Education, to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 24th January and 21st February.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any of this financial assistance given to biological research is provided by the War Office or the Air Ministry?

Not without notice, and possibly the supplementary question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friends.

Does the Minister realise that 15 per cent. is quite out of keeping with the demand put forward by Sir Howard Florey and his associates who wrote the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Royal Society on Biology?

I do not think so, no.

I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer, because it shows an advance. Will he have in mind the need to organise and finance research in biochemistry, because it is the same sort of demand and it needs the same sort of attention that I am sure that he will give to it?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is certainly the fact that we are giving to biochemistry the same close consideration regarding organisation and scale as to the problems of biology.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will take steps to establish an institute of human nutrition in this country.

No, Sir. The Medical Research Council already has five establishments engaged almost entirely on nutritional research, and other researches with a bearing on nutrition are pursued elsewhere by the Council, at institutes of the Agricultural Research Council, and by the other organisations including industrial research associations supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at the International Congress on Food, Science and Technology held recently in London it was stressed that an institute for human nutrition was long overdue in Britain and in those circumstances will he reconsider his reply?

At present my noble Friend's scientific advisers believe that better results will he obtained under our present system than by having a single centralised institute. Of course, this is always under review, as are similar matters.

Did my hon. Friend include Rothamsted in the list of institutes to which he referred? Is he aware that most valuable work has been carried out there in research into the production of proteins from vegetables and that one of the chief causes of undernourishment in the world is lack of protein?

I am aware of that. I did mention the institutes of the Agricultural Research Council, and the excellent work on producing protein from vegetable matter at the Institute to which my hon. Friend referred was in my mind.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what consideration he is giving to possible sites in Great Britain for one of the centres of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Institute for Science and Technology; and whether he will urge Edinburgh as the venue for such a centre.

Some preliminary consideration was given to possible sites in the United Kingdom, but in the circumstances set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 13th March, my noble Friend does not think it necessary to pursue the matter at the present time.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the amount of moneys allocated to the Medical Research Council's Pneumoconiosis Research Unit for its work on diseases of the lungs due to airborne dust.

The estimated expenditure in the Medical Research Council's Pneumoconiosis Research Unit in 1962–63 is approximately £105,000.

Surely that is not enough. Is the Minister aware that in 1962, 34 miners were found, after a post-mortem examination, to be suffering from the disease, although their X-ray plates had revealed no evidence of it, and that 57, whose X-ray plates indicated that they were suffering from the disease, were found, after a post-mortem examination, not to be suffering from it, making a total of 91 cases? Does the Minister think that this is a satisfactory service? In view of what I have said, will he do everything possible to provide more money for this research unit, so that it may be able to carry on its work more satisfactorily and give a more accurate service?

I think it worth remembering that in 1960 a new unit, the epidemiological research unit was hived off from the pneumoconiosis research unit and on that in the current year an expenditure of an additional £26,000 has been undertaken there. The hon. Member will also be aware that researches into the diseases of the lung due to airborne dust are carried out at universities and hospitals under the National Health Service.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into account the appalling figures of the results of this research work, as quoted by my hon. Friend, and see that a larger expenditure of money and a more efficient type of research is undertaken?

I cannot accept that the research undertaken at present is inefficient. I have visited both these units and I was most impressed by the calibre of the people working there. The Medical Research Council has recently agreed to an extension of the unit's programme of investigation of airborne dusts. But in dealing with this difficult problem it is very much a question of finding a new lead-in and supporting it and not necessarily a question of expanding the type of work done at the moment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he will take steps to co-ordinate the procedures of the Medical Research Council for financing research units in universities with the methods of financing research of the University Grants Committee.

Close co-ordination already exists between the Medical Research Council, the University Grants Committee, and the universities in the matter of financing medical research at the universities. In this the functions of the Council and the Committee are complementary. The arrangements are kept under continuing review by the bodies concerned.

Is the Minister aware that one of the complaints of medical research workers is that the Medical Research Council establishes a unit at a university and pays for it for three years and then leaves it to the university to carry on, and that very often the university does not obtain the funds from the University Grants Committee to enable it to do so?

If a particular project is not able to be financed out of the funds received by the university from the University Grants Committee, it is open to the research worker to re-apply to the Medical Research Council for an extension of his grant, and a number have done so within the last six months. I am not suggesting that the present arrangements are absolutely perfect. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman will read the speech made by my noble Friend in another place on 27th February, he will find that my noble Friend refers to the fact that he not only encouraged but initiated the general inquiry going on into the organisation and support for them.

Is not part of the trouble due to the decision of the Government to cut, or to refuse to give to the University Grants Committee, the full sum for which it asks? Did not that destroy the balance between the amounts of money allocated to the M.R.C. and the universities, with the result that the universities were not able to take over from the M.R.C., and is not the solution to see that the Government pay enough to the M.R.C.?

It is still the fact that the Medical Research Council has not been inhibited in giving grants for which the universities were not able to take over support due to lack of funds.

That is not the question I asked. Is it not a fact that, as a result of having to continue projects which the universities would normally have taken over, the M.R.C. was unable to take up new projects with the result that many new projects were refused last year?

I do not think that I can agree with the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has put his supplementary question. Certainly the number of possible projects which the universities might have taken on far outweighed any possible funds which they could have expected from the University Grants Committee.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has now been made by the three-fold organisation set up by the Atomic Energy Authority in 1961 to carry out research into the problems of nuclear propulsion for ships; and how much of the £3 million he estimated would be spent in three years has now been expended.

The Atomic Energy Authority, in collaboration with the British Ship Research Association, is now concentrating its effort on the Vulcain and integral boiling reactor systems. Under the research programme of some £3 million announced in November 1961, about £1·1 million has been spent to date.

Is not that a little disappointing, as it has now been going on for a year and a half? Will my hon. Friend authorise further expenditure if necessary? Will he allow more scientists to concentrate on this project if they can be found?

At the present time the shortage of money is not the factor which is inhibiting research, because we have still spent only just over a third of the money allocated. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the team working on these two reactors has not stated that the work is being held up through lack of funds.

Is it not a fact that the Mitchell Fairfield organisation is prepared to quote for a merchant ship now, guaranteeing price and performance and date of delivery?

The advisers to the Government considered the drawings of the Mitchell reactor when they were deciding upon which two reactor systems to concentrate research. Even bearing in mind all the points which the creators of the Mitchell system claim for it, they came to the conclusion that the Vulcain and integral boiling water reactor systems were more likely to prove economic.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Yarrow Admiralty Committee on the Clyde is being readily consulted and that information is being conveyed to it about what is going on in this development?

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said in this House, I think on Monday, the people at Yarrow have been brought into consultation.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary far Science if he will give the names of the Padmore Working group concerned with nuclear propulsion for merchant shipping, together with the names of the members of the study panel which made the decision to concentrate on the Vulcain and the integral boiling water reactors as the two types most technically suitable for further development for marine propulsion purposes.

With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Working Group, together with those of the study panel which made the technical assessment of the various reactor systems.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread anxiety caused by the fact that in this very important matter it seems that the Atomic Energy Authority is acting as judge and jury in its own case? Can he assure the House that the interests of private enterprise will be properly safeguarded both by the independence and by the technical qualifications of these gentlemen?

I think so. The Study Panel was composed of three members of the Atomic Energy Authority, three members who were not members of the Atomic Energy Authority, and a chairman who was also not a member of the Atomic Energy Authority. With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, the Padmore Group, as it is commonly known, had on it a representative of the General Council of British Shipping and a representative of Lloyd's Register of Shipping as well as the director of the London Laboratories of the British Ship Research Association. The reports both of the Panel and of the Working Group were unanimous.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety among a large number of knowledgeable people that all is not really well with the experimentation which is going on at Risley? Would he agree to accept some quite independent knowledgeable expert, such as Professor John Kay, to see whether all aspects of the matter are being satisfactorily dealt with so that the general public who are interested in this matter can have satisfaction?

The Working Group existed to advise the Government on this important matter and it set up the Study Panel in order to make the technical assessments. It considered a variety of possible reactor systems. It was unanimous in its choice of the two upon which it was decided that the Government should concentrate their efforts. I do not think we can now start asking somebody to come in in order to criticise the unanimous opinion of this Study Group. I am certain that the group at Risley would welcome any expert who cared to go and discuss matters with it, bearing in mind the fact that commercial secrecy does enter into this problem.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the study of four possible reactor systems for ships; and which system is now considered most promising.

As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on 27th November, the programme for research and development, financed by the Government, has been narrowed down to the Vulcain and integral boiling reactors, which have technical advantages worked out over the last year or two. Both types show promise in their present state of development: work on the Vulcain is perhaps more advanced, but the integral boiling reactor might prove more economic.

Can my hon. Friend say when a decision will be reached about these two reactors? Will there be any more research into the point that has been criticised—namely, the internal pumps?

On the first part of that supplementary question, I hope that we shall be in a position to say whether either or both of the two reactor systems in fact will prove to be economic by the end of the summer. On the second part, we do not accept the criticism that has been made about the pumps nor the point about radioactive steam which has been made in some quarters.

Can my hon. Friend now say why no emphasis has been laid on the marine engineering side for future development after the reactors have finally been put into operation? Is that not a point which requires examination?

This point is under examination, because the British Ship Research Association has seconded people to the team which is doing the planning for the first nuclear merchant ship. The question of the design of the vessel is one of the matters on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is having conversations with the shipbuilding industry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he is satisfied with the present method of determining the levels of grant made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to research associations; and if he will make it more flexible.

The grant to each association is fixed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research after discussion with its representatives, and in the light of all relevant circumstances. This method provides flexibility. My noble Friend and the Research Council are always ready to consider suggestions for improvement, and he has asked the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to request the Industrial Grants Committee to keep the matter under review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he also consider whether or not his noble Friend should have a more direct approach to research associations to see if they have a point of view which would not always get through to him via the D.S.I.R.?

I have not noticed any inhibitions on the part either of individual directors of research associations or the chairman of the committee of directors of research associations to approach either my noble Friend or myself when they have thought it useful.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many research associations are very dissatisfied with the level of grant which they receive from the D.S.I.R., particularly when they are concerned with defence or development research projects which cover a number of industries and which are, therefore, more difficult to finance than those that concern a single industry?

I am not saying that the amount of money which goes to the research associations from the taxpayer's pocket is necessarily too large, or even at its optimum level. We have just instituted a new grant in order to stop up a lacuna which we felt existed. We must remember, however, that research associations exist for the benefit of their industrial members and their usefulness can be gauged to some extent by the level of contributions which their industrial members are willing to make.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what ear-marked grants have been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to research associations; and how many applications are awaiting decisions.

No grants have yet been made, but eight firm applications are now being considered.

May I ask for an assurance that we shall not have to wait for the final Report of the Trend Committee before we can have a statement on this matter?

No indeed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what information the Minister for Science gave the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority staff representatives whom he recently received about the prospects for employment at Aldermaston after the spring of 1964; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent changes in the programme of work to be undertaken by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment will necessitate staff changes at Aldermaston; and if the Authority expects to be able to offer comparable employment to the scientists and technicians whose services will no longer be required at Aldermaston.

My noble Friend recently received a joint deputation from the staff and trade union sides of the Authority's Joint Industrial and Whitley Councils at which the situation was fully discussed. He confirmed to them that, while the load on the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and its outstations was not expected to diminish substantially before March, 1964, a reduction thereafter could not be ruled out and the deputation asked that everything possible be done to minimise its effect on employees.

Does my hon. Friend realise that that Answer is not entirely satisfactory? Aldermaston means not only A.W.R.E. but also A.E.I. Does my hon. Friend realise that the scientists at this institute are having great difficulty in finding new jobs? Will he co-operate with A.E.I. and also the Minister of Labour on the replacement of redundant scientists? Does not he think that this is a golden opportunity for the Government to be able to use these men in creating greater peaceful uses of atomic energy?

In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, the operation or removal of the Associated Electrical Industries laboratory at Aldermaston is not a matter for which my noble Friend has responsibility. On the second part of the question, we are co-operating with all other Government Departments to alleviate the problems of any scientists or professional people who are made redundant from the Authority's staff. In regard to the third point, this of course would mean a substantial increase in Government expenditure.

Can my hon. Friend say how many men and women will be affected and whether all those who will be affected have been notified? Can he give an assurance that all the buildings and equipment at Aldermaston—established at very considerable expense—will be continued for some useful purposes after 1964?

It is impossible until all the implications of the changed defence programme resulting from the Nassau Agreement have been worked out to say how many men or women or what categories will have to be redundant, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall inform the staff as soon as we possibly can.

Will my hon. Friend revert to the last part of his original Answer to me and press a little more for this extra expenditure? If we are running down the establishment, cannot the balance of the money be used for peaceful uses, and the improvement of peaceful uses of atomic energy as well as the defence of this country which is equally as important? Do not let anyone misunderstand that. The two should go in balance.

I am very glad that my hon. Friend is supporting the very substantial programme on the civil side of the Atomic Energy Authority. He will have noticed that only recently we have authorised the Authority to build a steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath. It is essential to keep the programme in balance, but it has to fit in with all the other scientific and industrial policies of the Government and cannot be considered in isolation.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress is being made with the new Food Research Institute.

Preliminary plans for the new buildings are being prepared. Detailed planning will begin soon when the overall plan for university buildings on the site at Norwich has been agreed.

I thank my hon. Friend.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what plans he has for the removal of the National Chemical Laboratory from Teddington to a site where expansion will be possible.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what plans he has for the removal of the National Chemical Laboratory from Teddington to a site in a scheduled area such as Merseyside, North-East England, or Scotland.

The building requirements of all establishments of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the next five years, including those of the National Chemical Laboratory, are at present under consideration. It is not yet possible to say what development of the N.C.L. will take place or whether a move to a new site will be possible. If a move to a new site can be fitted into the programme, the claims of areas of high unemployment will be considered.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he, when considering new sites, give special consideration to the advantages of moving this laboratory to the North-East, where it could not only operate more efficiently but where its presence would help to stimulate scientific research and technological development in the area?

I will bear that in mind.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that there are extremely distinguished faculties of chemistry at Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow with whom National Chemical Laboratory personnel could cross-fertilise ideas?

I take the point made by the hon. Member.

If this laboratory has to be moved from Teddington, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that plenty of notice will be given to the staff and also some help over removal expenses?

On the first part of that supplementary question, of course we shall give the maximum notice possible and if a new building has to be erected the notice will be substantial in length. I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's second suggestion.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science when the laboratory of the Government Chemist will move from the Strand to the South Bank; and why it is not being moved out of central London.

The move is planned to take place in September this year. To move the laboratory out of central London would slow up communication through the railway system with the nation's ports and disrupt the advisory service to Government Departments, particularly the Customs and Excise Department. As much as possible of the day-to-day routine work is dispersed to stations at Bristol, Glasgow or Liverpool.

Does not my hon. Friend consider that this high official could carry out his duties far better in the clean air and open space of the North-East than on the South Bank?

I do think that it is essential for the main body of the laboratory of the Government Chemist to be near both Customs and Excise and the ports of London. No less than 240,000 samples originate each year from Customs and Excise and about one-quarter of this number is delivered direct from the London docks by Customs van. I am not sure that, if we moved the laboratory out of central London, we would in fact either expedite analyses or cut costs.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science why the new laboratories now being built for the Road Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are below the standards commonly accepted for Government laboratories.

There are no generally applicable standards laid down for the construction of Government laboratories, which have to be designed individually to suit their respective purposes. I am satisfied that the proposed new Road Research Laboratory will provide adequate accommodation for the effective conduct of road research.

In view of the considerable criticism of this project which has appeared in the Press, will my hon. Friend give publicity to that Answer?

I have read it in the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary received a formal deputation from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants which did not express itself as satisfied. Is he aware, for instance, that the Institution suggested to him that 40 per cent. of the office space was below the minimum accommodation in Government offices, that 140 laboratories had ceilings so low that they could not have equipment put in them, that there was no room for a computer and no room for a conference hall? Is that the Parliamentary Secretary's usual standard for a new research laboratory?

In fact the Institution wrote to my noble Friend. It did not see him. With regard to the three points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that a worker who works part of his time in a laboratory and part writing up his notes in an office requires the same standards of office accommodation as an executive officer in Whitehall. With regard to the computer, the present computer we intend to keep at the Radio Research Station but when the Road Research Laboratory gets its own computer there will have to be additional housing. I admit that at the moment a conference hall is not included within the plans, but these are not the final plans for the complete laboratory as it will be at the end of the day.

Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary aright that, if one spends half one's day in a place, the accommodation should be only half as adequate?

No. If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see that he did not get the point.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many members of the staffs of industrial research associations have paid official visits abroad during each of the last three years.

I do not have this information since the industrial research associations which are grant-aided by the. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are independent co-operative bodies and such staff matters are within the competence of their own councils.

When considering the financing of such associations, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that they have a very high reputation abroad, that in fact many of the senior members of their staff do go abroad and participate in conferences and give advice, and that they in fact are doing a very useful job for British industry? This is one of the reasons why they need more money.

I do not think that the Government should give particular grants to research associations to be used for this purpose only. I think that out of the general grant we must leave it to the research associations to decide upon the amount of travelling which they wish their members to undertake. This will differ greatly from research association to research association. My noble Friend and I are very keen indeed that their names should stand high in the scientific councils of the world.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that in fact it does stand very high indeed and that they are performing a very useful function in doing this?

I rejoice that the hon. Member and I are agreed on these two points.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if, following the evidence given by the Royal Society, as set out in Command Paper No. 1920, regarding the accuracy of the estimates made in the 1959 Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower regarding the numbers of biologists being trained, he will take steps to reassess the need for biologists.

For many years the Committee on Scientific Manpower and the Advisory Council have drawn attention to shortages of biologists of adequate quality, and of those with a sufficient basic training in physics or chemistry, or with special qualifications, existing at the same time as other biologists, with no more than a general training, were finding difficulty in obtaining suitable employment. This assessment—which the Council confirms in paragraph 31 of its latest Report, Cmnd. 1920—and in which my noble Friend concurs, is not inconsistent with the Royal Society's evidence annexed to that Report.

Is it not an extraordinary fact that both the Willink Committee made a mistake as to the shortage of doctors and that, for all the Parliamentary Secretary's words, the Royal Society thinks that the Advisory Council on Scientific Research made a mistake as to the number of biologists? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that these committees are adequately staffed with statisticians and research workers so that the material they require to consider is adequately presented to them?

I think, quite honestly, that this belief that the Committee on Scientific Manpower has been totally wrong is based on error. Throughout the last 12 years both committees have constantly mentioned the fact that general biologists are finding difficulty in getting employment, and therefore it can be said that we have enough general biologists. However, at the same time there is a definite lack of biologists of adequate quality with a sufficient basic training in physics and chemistry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what advantage has been taken of the recent outbreak of encephalitis lethargica, or sleeping sickness, in the Colchester area to assist research into the causes and treatment of this disease.

I understand that detailed investigations of the recent cases of illness in the Colchester area have not confirmed the earlier suspicion that these were due to encephalitis lethargica.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that Answer. I trust that he is not trying to dazzle me by science in his reply. Does he not agree that in fact it is certainly a virus disease akin to encephalitis lethargica? Should not the opportunity be taken to do research into this disease, whatever it be called, since it killed one man and put the lives of two young girls in grave jeopardy?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the illnesses at Colchester were very sad and very horrible, but I am advised that no evidence of virological infection was found either in the one fatal case or in the two suspected cases and, furthermore, that microscopic examination of specimens of brain tissue taken from the man who died failed to confirm the diagnosis of encephalitis lethargica suggested at an earlier stage.

Can my hon. Friend explain why there was an original diagnosis of encephalitis lethargica substantiated by many medical people?

It is possible for anyone to be mistaken, particularly when dealing with the complicated systems of what I am grateful to say is a very rare disease.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the results of research into encephalitis being undertaken in the United States of America are made available, by way of international agreement or otherwise, to research organisations and the medical profession in this country.

The results of medical research are normally published in the scientific jnurnals and scientists working in different countries but, in the same fields maintain close contact with each other. I am not aware of any need to supplement this by special arrangements relating to research into encephalitis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that about 186,000 dollars have recently been made available by the Florida Board of Health for investigation into this and similar diseases? Does he not think that it would be appropriate to take special steps to see that the result of this research is made readily available in this country?

We must remember that there are two very distinct diseases which come under the general heading of encephalitis. The first is the Japanese type B which occurs in Japan, Russia and Australia, and the other is the St. Louis type, on which work was done in the United States, and of which I do not think we have had any in this country for something like 50 years.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that research—particularly medical research—should as far as possible have no frontiers? Is it not worth while making representations, if there are these evidences, so that, as far as possible, we may play our full part in spreading the creed that science should be universal?

Yes, but all scientific research is published sooner or later. Close contact is maintained between scientists. All I am saying is that I have not had brought to my attention by scientists the need for any new organisation to help them the better to know what their colleagues are doing.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the research work undertaken by his Department, and by other bodies which report to him, into the effect of pesticides and other toxic sprays on animals, birds and insects, also includes research into the probable cumulative effects of chemicals which remain toxic for long periods in the soil.

Yes, Sir.

In which case can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where the research is being conducted, by whom, and where the result can be obtained, because there is a great deal of anxiety among scientists and people generally about the possible cumulative effects of these sprays remaining in the soil? Up to now no one has given any information at all about the research being undertaken in this matter.

The relevant research is being done at the Agricultural Research Council's National Vegetable Research Station in collaboration with the Plant Pathology Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture; by the Nature Conservancy in collaboration with the Government Chemists' Laboratory and at the Weed Research Organisation and Rothamsted Experimental Station. Accounts of the work appear in the Annual Reports of these bodies.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the serious charges made by the distinguished scientific writer, Rachel Carson, in her book "Silent Spring", in which she states that many of the pesticides commonly used are carcinogenic? In those circumstances would he refer this important matter not merely to the Agricultural Research Council but to the Medical Research Council?

On the whole question of pesticides and co-ordinating research we have the Fraser Committee set up especially for this purpose, and I understand that it is doing an excellent job of work.

Has my hon. Friend read "Silent Spring", by Rachel Carson and, if not, will he read it and also make it compulsory reading for his Department? Is he aware that in that book a totally new line is taken on this subject and that his Answer is just not good enough?

I and all the senior members of the Department have read this book, but a large part of it refers to practice and experience in America and is not applicable to experience in this country.

asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are concerned with the various aspects of the problem of air pollution; and what steps he will now take to co-ordinate and accelerate the work of their respective Departments and to implement a policy to reduce the danger, dirt and waste caused by the high pollution in urban areas.

The main responsibility rests with the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister for Science, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Power are also concerned. All are pressing on with the vital work of reducing air pollution and I have no evidence that the present arrangements for co-ordination need review.

Can the Prime Minister say what is being done to speed up the implementation of the Clean Air Act, particularly in the North? Can he further say what is being done to accelerate research on the elimination of carbon-monoxide from petrol engines and of sulphur dioxide from industrial and domestic plant and also from diesel engines?

These are all separate points, and I do not want to take too long over my reply. Regarding the first, if the hon. Member will read Command Paper "Smog Control, England and Wales, 1962–66" he will get the information there. Regarding diesel and petrol, these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question specifically to him.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that it is very difficult to secure the proper implementation of the Clean Air Act so long as smokeless fuel is either not available or is too expensive for old-age pensioners to buy?

As the hon. Member knows, the Act is applied in many cities. I am told that the supply of fuel generally is satisfactory. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult President Kennedy with a view to securing Western acceptance in the test ban talks of the Russian proposal for three on-site inspections a year plus three sealed returnable seismic stations on their territory, and so enable a test ban treaty to be concluded.

As I told the House on 14th March, I agree that the reversion of the Soviet Government to their position of 1960 by the acceptance of the principle of on-site inspection is an important step forward and I am very hopeful that it may ultimately lead to a solution. I am in freqaent communication with President Kennedy on important matters which concern our two Governments.

The Prime Minister has not answered my Question. Is it not a fact that the West said, and have said for a long time, that if only the Russians would accept the principle of inspection a test ban treaty could be concluded? Is it not a fact that the issues are now purely political and not technical? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Russians were now to split the difference between their offer of three and the West's demand of seven—and accept five tests—he would now, in the name of the British people, jump to accept that in order to get a treaty concluded?

The important thing is to get agreement between all the Powers concerned—and I take note of the hon. Lady's suggestion—but at the moment the original American wish was for twenty which was reduced to seven. Then the Russians have gone back to the position they had taken—but which they afterwards abandoned—and accepted the principle, and offered three. There is, in addition to the number—which is, I hope, a matter which will be able to be settled—the question of the conditions under which these inspections would take place and, of course, negotiation will be necessary on all these points.

In view of the acceptance of the principle which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is a big step forward, will he now say whether the West have made clear what is their limiting figure, what figure they regard as the absolute minimum, and whether the British Government are in support of the figure stated by the United States? Will he also say how seriously he regards the other problem—the question of the circumstances in which inspections would take place?

On the second part of that supplementary question, it is absolutely vital because if the inspections are not effective they have no purpose. The present position the Russian Government have taken is that they are not prepared to discuss the question of the conditions of inspection until the question of the number has been settled. I am hopeful that it will be possible to make progress, but I do not think that progress will be made by entering into some kind of public auction on this question. I think that, in the end, we will have to try to reach it by agreement.

asked the Prime Minister what are the difficulties which make it impossible for him to approve a change in the regulations governing the wearing by Her Majesty's subjects of decorations awarded to them by foreign States.

To allow foreign decorations to be worn more freely than is at present customary could lead to the virtual abolition of the existing distinction, which seems right and proper, between restricted and unrestricted wearing of decorations. Moreover, amendment would entail seeking similar alterations in the Commonwealth Order Regulations.

As these difficulties have been overcome by practically all foreign countries, would not my right hon. Friend look again at this problem, in view of the resentment caused among foreign Governments that their decorations, though they have been properly categorised by Her Majesty's Government as being fit to be accepted, are not fit to be worn?

There has always been this difference between the restricted and the unrestricted, and it goes back to the long tradition of this country to be rather more careful in the distribution and use of these foreign decorations. But I find it very difficult to conduct this exchange with my hon. Friend by Question and Answer. If he would be good enough to see me, I will try to collect the experts. I cannot claim to be an expert on this rather complicated question of protocol.

Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be better manners, and more in keeping with contemporary values, if we were just a little less stuffy in our attitude to all these regulations, bearing in mind not only decorations but clothes generally? It does not add to the dignity of this country, or to its reputations for good manners in regard to protocol, to insist, for instance, on people wearing polar dinner clothes in the heat of Australia.

Clothes do not have anything to do with decorations.

Although I have nothing at all to do with the Question on the Order Paper, in accordance with the custom of the House I must declare a slight personal interest. Is it not manifestly absurd that citizens of this country who have been honoured by foreign States should be prevented, except in the most absurd circumstances, from wearing those decorations? Should not this archaic and feudal prevention of a pride natural in those people be brought to an end?

As I say, it is rather a complicated question. I am prepared to look at it again, but it is one on which agreement has been reached, and it would be necessary to get all the Commonwealth countries to agree to a change.

asked the Prime Minister (1) what was the salary of a Cabinet Minister in 1938; and to what figure his present salary would have to be amended to take account of the increase in the index of retail prices since that date;

In 1938, senior Ministers were paid £5,000 and Parliamentary Secretaries £1,500. The retail price index only started in 1947, but taking into account the rise in consumer prices since 1938, the corresponding figures now would be £15,300 and £4,590 respectively. Of course, if questions of taxation were to be taken into account, very much larger figures would be involved.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these figures reveal that his colleagues are grotesquely underpaid in the light of the consistently successful way in which they carry out their duties?

The question of additional payment is, of course, mentioned from time to time and has been dealt with, and may be dealt with again. Meanwhile, we must be content with the approbation of our fellow countrymen.

Apart from Ministers receiving reasonable salaries, did not the Prime Minister say the other day that he hoped they would be judged by results? That being so, would it not be desirable in the case of some of his colleagues, in view of the lavish promises they have made which remain unfulfilled, to pay them by results?

I think that had that applied during the last Labour Administration there would have been very little pay.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in relation to Cabinet Ministers' salaries, the right year of comparison is not 1938 but 1831, when their present remuneration was fixed by way of reduction as a temporary economy measure? Does not my right hon. Friend think that the particular circumstances of 1831 which caused that reduction have now passed away?

These are relevant matters, of course, but I must point out that if my hon. Friend is thinking that we should try to aim at the same net receipts, the gross sums would rise considerably, because this is the result —[An HON. MEMBER: "Of inflation."]—of the taxation system. It has nothing to do with inflation. The Question is connected with retail prices, but if net receipts were the consideration there would be very large, almost astronomical, figures, and that is an important fact in the modern conditions of life.

asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the President of the United States of America on the proposal to add surface ships armed with Polaris missiles to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.

I am in frequent touch with the President of the United States t but it is not customary to reveal what passes in these exchanges.

Then is the Prime Minister telling us that he has had no report of the visit of President Kennedy's representative, Mr. Livingston Merchant, to Western Europe? Is he aware that Mr. Merchant's visit has been received with great satisfaction in America, because one achievement has been that Western Germany has decided to take a substantial financial share in the proposed surface fleet equipped with Polaris missiles? If that be the case, does it not cut across the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—of Article 6—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—of the Nassau agreement?

No, Sir. When any particular plan is worked out it will be put before N.A.T.O. for its consideration. The broad principles were laid down in the Nassau Agreement and debated in this House. When any legal question arises, it will no doubt he considered then.

But is it not the case that the British and German Defence Ministers yesterday signed a communiqué saying that they had agreed in principle to contribute to this deterrent? Does not the Prime Minister owe the House and the country the duty to give more details of this most important matter? Is it not the case that we are now committed to spending £400 million on Polaris, £400 million on the T.S.R. system, £200 million on keeping the V-bombers going, and now another £200 million on a multilateral N.A.T.O. deterrent without any political or strategic explanation being given? Will the Prime Minister lay a White Paper, so that the House and the country can judge the wisdom of the Government's policy?

No, Sir. At this stage, it would be quite wrong to do so. The matter has been discussed in principle in our defence debates, and discussions and negotiations are being carried on which will take the N.A.T.O. Council a long time. If at some point it is thought right to have a debate, or if it is possible to have a debate, we will consider it, but it is not, at this time, possible.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the event of a future war, this proposal, if implemented, would give a maritime Power a cast-iron excuse for embarking at the outset on an unrestricted submarine campaign?

Of course, many considerations have to be gone into. All that has happened so far is that the broad principles were agreed at Nassau, and we shall stick to what we undertook. That is a question for consideration by all the countries concerned, and possibly, after the N.A.T.O. conference in Ottawa, which is meeting generally to deal with another aspect in the first instance, this wider issue may be considered.

But is not the Prime Minister aware that there is very widespread feeling in all parts of the House, because large sums—very large sums, indeed—are being voted by the House for defence without any information being given to the House? We had nothing in the White Paper or in the defence debate about some items, and even larger commitments seem to be in process of being entered into. Is it not right that at the earliest possible moment after the Government have come to a decision on policy, the House should be informed in fullest measure?

These are merely preliminary discussions going on at present among various N.A.T.O. members.