asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what is the monetary value of the scientific research, carried out in the United Kingdom, financed directly or indirectly by funds from the United States Public Health Department vote.

A figure of 1,521,140 dollars equivalent to £543,000, has been published by the United States Public Health Service as the expenditure by its National Institutes of Health on research projects in the United Kingdom in their fiscal year 1962.

In the light of these considerable figures does not the Minister think that the remarks of his noble Friend in another place about American scientists were somewhat ungracious? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Americans are getting rather tired of financing European research and might well, for understandable reasons, divert their funds elsewhere?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". In answer to the second part, it shows the recognition of the value of research done in this country and the esteem in which our research workers are held by the Americans that they wish to finance work here.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science (1) what percentage of the Government expenditure of £100 millions on support for private industrial research has been paid to industrial undertakings located in Scotland;

(2) what percentage of the total Government expenditure on scientific and technical research in 1961–2 was spent in Scotland.

The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy estimated total Government expenditure in 1961–62 on research and development in the United Kingdom at £385 million, including £177 million on research and development carried out in private industry. The proportions of this spent in Scotland are not known.

There are tables of statistics in the Advisory Council's Report which show the proportion of expenditure on development in Scotland. Why cannot we have these figures separated here?

Although I agree that it would be statistically feasible, I am advised that it would not be statistically significant because of the difficulties of disentangling the research undertaken by Scottish subsidiaries of English firms and vice versa and, in particular, because of research sub-contracted across the Border.

I referred clearly in the Question to "industrial establishments located in Scotland". Surely we can have the figures for research and development financed at plants, by whoever they are owned, located in Scotland?

As I have said, I do not believe that these would be statistically significant figures.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in view of the need for increased productivity in the building industry, what additional contributions his Department is making to the work of the Building Research Station.

In 1964–65 the non-industrial staff of this station will be increased by approximately 6 per cent. in order to increase those activities which contribute most directly to greater productivity.

In view of the major importance of the industry and the relatively low contribution from the industry itself to research, does the Parliamentary Secretary think this is adequate? Can he give an assurance that all the resources that are necessary will be devoted to cold weather research and that this particular difficulty will not hold up the building industry?

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, money and manpower resources available for Government civil research are not unlimited and have to be divided amongst the various research stations, all of which are doing work of national importance. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works for the establishment of a building research and information association.

With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Gentleman cares to table a detailed Question to me I will willingly give him or send to him details of the research into insulation which has taken place at the Building Research Station.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give greater consideration to research into the traditional type of building, especially for private houses and houses built by local authorities, so that the rate of building these houses can be speeded up?

A considerable amount of research is going on at the Building Research Station. If any hon. Members would like to go there and see what is being done, I will gladly do my best to arrange visits.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the Director of the Meat Research Institute has now completed the drafting of his research programme.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made in connection with the Meat Research Institute.

Plans for the building and for the organisation and staffing of the Institute are now under detailed study by the Agricultural Research Council. The Director's proposals for the research programme will be progressively developed in the light of the progress of research at the Low Temperature Research Station and other factors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Have any decisions yet been taken about sub-stations for this research institute?

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many full-time university and college of advanced technology post-graduate students make use of the facilities at the Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, East Kilbride, the Radar Research Establishment at Malvern and the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough

Although the facilities available at the National Engineering Laboratory have been made widely known, they have not yet been used by post-graduate students. I am glad to say that arrangements for closer co-operation between the Laboratory and the Royal College of Science and Technology at Glasgow are at present under discussion.

The position at the other two stations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

What plans do the various Government Departments concerned—the hon. Gentleman's Office and the Ministry of Aviation—have for bringing together students to make fuller use of this highly sophisticated and expensive equipment?

Certain universities permit post-graduates to spend part of their Ph.D courses away from the university at institutes where the particular nature of their work makes this desirable. I would hope that we might have an expansion of this type of activity, and doubtless this is one of the matters that the Robbins Committee will be considering.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether, in view of the uncertainty among the staff, he will now make a further statement about the employment situation at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Establishment after March, 1964, and about his arrangements for dealing with the redundancy in the event of a reduction of work.

I regret I can at present add nothing to my statement of 19th March.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware of the undesirability of such large staffs being in a state of continual uncertainty, because it demoralises them? Cannot he at least give us the assurance that the team will be held together and not be disbanded?

I have said that it is very unlikely that there will be any redundancy of scientists. With regard to the other staff at Aldermaston, it has been said that the question of redundancy cannot be ruled out after March, 1964. The staff have been told that by the autumn of this year it should be possible to give a more precise indication of staffing arrangements thereafter. I am afraid that at present I cannot add anything to my earlier statement.

Is not the hon. Gentleman at least able to give us the assurance that we are not concerned only about redundancy but about the breaking up of staff? Is not that something where his advance planning could at least ensure that where a large staff is built up it will be retained as a unit?

When the plans are fully made for the position after March, 1964, a statement will be made.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what changes are proposed for the Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge.

As already announced, the Agricultural Research Council proposes to continue the work of this station at two new institutions, the Meat Research Institute near Bristol, and the Food Research Institute at Norwich, when the premises in Cambridge have to be vacated.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary be able to say what is to happen to the staff now working at the Ditton Laboratory? Can he confirm or deny the suggestion that those working at the John Innes Horticultural Institute are also to go to Cambridge? If that is the case, what will happen to the new building which has recently been erected at Hertford?

With regard to the Ditton Laboratory, some of the work will be transferred to Norwich in due course and the staff concerned have been told. With regard to the John Innes Institute, this is a separate institute and it is unlikely to be moved to Cambridge.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what action it is proposed to take in respect of paragraphs 6 to 14 of the report of the National Economic Development Council, "Conditions favourable to Faster Growth."

The growing effort of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the field of industrial research, and the Government's expansion programme in the fields of technical and higher education are all directed to the objectives referred to by the Council. The matters discussed in paragraphs 11–13 are to be further considered by the Council itself.

In view of the highly significant section of the Report to which reference is made in the Question, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that he ought to be a little more specific, or are we to take the paragraphs in the Report as so much window-dressing?

No. These are very important paragraphs which we are certainly considering. They really demand an intensification of effort rather than the establishment of some new path. These matters are now being discussed. I am informed that the Council itself will discuss this section of the Report again.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say something about the specific recommendation to extend the use of civil development contracts to industry?

We are in favour of this and I hope that, following the hon. Member's Question, we will receive even more applications from industry for D.S.I.R. support in this field.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary read this part of the Report again, because it says specifically that Government and industry should work together, with the implication that they are not yet doing so in partnership in new fields of research? The Minister must be aware that the present effort to solve this immensely important problem is totally inadequate.

I fully agree that Government and industry should be in partnership in the research fields. We are already in very close touch with industry through the research associations and also through the industrialists who give up their time to help on D.S.I.R. committees and on the Council.

On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science in what scientific fields desirable research projects are being currently impeded by shortages of qualified staff.

It is not possible to distinguish clearly difficulties arising out of shortage from those, which often occur, of finding high-class research workers with the right interests and aptitudes for particular projects. Among the fields in which the research councils report delay from these causes are engineering, genetics, soil physics and animal diseases.

What is the hon. Gentleman's Office doing about the particular delayed projects?

The essential thing is the production of more scientists. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are having very great success in this field.

Especially in America, I take it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many persons are at present occupied in official geological research; what steps he is taking to extend this research; and if he will consult the Minister of Transport about ways and means of achieving the most effective employment of geologists on the planning of roads.

Five hundred and eighteen persons are employed on geological research by the research councils, an increase of 23 per cent. in the last five years.

The advice of geologists in the Geological Survey and in the Road Research Laboratory is available to my right hon. Friend and his agents.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is obviously considerable room for improvement, both in research and in its application? If he has any doubts about this, would he enter into consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about the amount of wastage and inefficiency that have occurred in the construction of the M.6 motorway, as a result obviously of a failure to employ sufficiently qualified geologists to do the initial work?

I think we must remember that not only is geology important but that pedology is equally important, and a great deal of research is going on in both these fields.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether a new site for the National Chemical Laboratory has yet been chosen; and what criteria have been used in making the choice.

I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. BourneArton) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 19th March, 1963.

Will this decision be influenced by the proximity that the eventual site will have to the National Physical Laboratory? I know that many members of the National Chemical Laboratory staff would like to feel that they could be at fairly close hand.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be an ideal solution to have a new National Chemical Laboratory building within easy reach of the National Physical Laboratory building at Teddington. This appears to be unlikely to be achieved because of the difficulty of finding a suitable site in the near vicinity. However, we certainly place very great importance upon there being close contact between the working of the National Chemical Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory, wherever either may be situated.

Is the Minister aware that this is just the kind of laboratory that should be sited in Scotland where we want to promote the very industries that we expect will develop from the work of this laboratory?

I note the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary note the desirability of locating this laboratory near an existing centre of the chemical industry, in view of the great importance of securing a rapid transfer of views from the scientists to the industrialists?

I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion as well, but of course it will not be possible to put it in both the North-East and Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend now prepared to answer a little more clearly the second part of my Question, regarding the criteria which are being borne in mind?

The technical requirements must have an overriding influence. My noble Friend has for some years asked research councils to take the claims of areas of high unemployment into consideration, but I think that the technical requirements must have an overriding part in the decision.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what changes will result from the completion of various defence building projects relating to scientific research and development, with particular reference to the manpower involved and conditions of employment.

The reduction in the capital building programme of the Atomic Energy Authority, which is largely due to completion of civil projects, has been accelerated to some extent by further decline in building work for defence purposes. Most of the consequential reduction in staff in the Authority's engineering group is being dealt with by not replacing wastage and by redeployment, but there may be some redundancy. My noble Friend is responsible for no other defence projects.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that as much warning as possible will be given to the men concerned? Is it a fact that they are already being warned of their discharge, before an actual decision or date has been arrived at?

Regarding the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we are doing our best to give as much warning as possible. Where it appears likely that there will be redundancy within any given category, we try to warn the men who may be concerned so that, if they wish to, they can start looking for another job and have the maximum amount of time in which to do so.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent a survey has been made of the results of the work of the Scottish Research Laboratories Mutual Assistance Scheme.

In the last year, the Scottish Research Laboratories Mutual Assistance Scheme has dealt with 230 inquiries: of these 85 came from industrial laboratories, 65 from universities and technical colleges, 63 from Government laboratories and there were 17 others. Over half these inquiries were given precise answers.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a year ago we were told that the Government would try to make a survey of the final results of the work of this scheme? Could he say something about that?

We do not regard it as a scheme which has a once-for-all existence, but as something which will continue and be of immense value to industry. It is very important to remember that whatever the figure of the number of inquiries that go through D.S.I.R.'s headquarters in Edinburgh, many more inquiries are dealt with by people using the handbook and dealing direct with people who may have the facility they require.

The hon. Gentleman is missing my point. We were promised a year ago that a proper survey would be made in order to find out the effectiveness of this work. What, if anything, has been done about that?

Perhaps the hon. Member would care to put down a detailed Question on that point. I do not myself recall making a promise of a published survey.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the number of scientific staff employed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was employed in Scotland.

The number of scientific staff employed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on 1st May, 1963, was 3,536, 13 per cent. of whom were employed in Scotland.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Scotland produces almost 20 per cent. of the total number of scientists and technologists in this country, yet only 13 per cent. of them find posts available in Scotland? Is he aware that his reply indicates that some action will have to be taken if employment is to be found for these people in Scotland?

Our present plans for the D.S.I.R. include some expansion in the total staff. Scotland will share in this expansion.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this staff is in London and if there is any necessity for them to be in London? Is this not an example of the way in which the Government could set a lead and disperse them?

The only people who are in London are at the D.S.I.R. headquarters, and they have to be there. If the hon. Member wishes to put down a Question about the Laboratory of the Government Chemist or the Tropical Products Institute, I will be glad to answer it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the number of scientific staff employed under the oversight of the Agricultural Research Council at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was employed in Scotland.

On 1st October, 1962 the total, including experimental and scientific assistant classes, was 2,770, of whom about a quarter were employed in Scotland.

While we appreciate that there is a large percentage of research workers in this field in Scotland, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that the excellent work which these gentlemen do could be extended into other forms of research? Will he undertake to expand the service?

I cannot guarantee to have a major expansion at any particular station in answer to a general Question of this nature, but if the hon. Member feels that there is a station under the scientific oversight of the Agricultural Research Council in Scotland which needs to be increased I will gladly answer a Question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the number of scientific staff employed by Nature Conservancy at the latest convenient date; and what proportion of these was employed in Scotland.

The total number of scientific staff employed by the Nature Conservancy on 1st April, 1963, was 135, of whom about one-fifth were employed in Scotland.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a single residential nature and field study centre in Scotland, although there are seven such centres south of the Border? Is he further aware that there is not one local nature reserve trust in Scotland, although every county in England has one? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter to see if some improvement can be made?

We are dealing with the Nature Conservancy and I think that the hon. Member is confusing that with a number of voluntary bodies. The Nature Conservancy has 14 staff employed at the headquarters in Edinburgh, six at the Speyside Research Station, two employed on research on grey seals, and four on grouse and moorland ecology.

Is not one-fifth in Scotland more than Scotland's fair share? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the value of Department for Scientific and Industrial Research development contracts placed at present with private industry; and what proportion of these contracts has been placed in Scotland.

Three development contracts have so far been placed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research having a total value of £593,000; one of these, for £57,000, has been placed in Scotland.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the proportion of contracts being placed with private industry in Scotland? If not, is he prepared to take such action as may lead to an increase in the number of contracts being placed?

My noble Friend and I are not satisfied with the rate at which applications have been coming in. I hope that more will come in and that everything that can be done to publicise development contracts will be done, to the benefit of the nation, including Scotland. My noble Friend has recently been having discussions with industrialists over this very question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the number of grant-aided research organisations now enjoying full membership of the Government scheme; and how many of these organisations are Scottish based.

Fifty-two. One of the research associations is centred in Scotland and three others have branch laboratories or use structure testing rig there. The liaison services provided by all the associations enable them to assist their members in Scotland.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of evidence to show that industry in Scotland does not use research facilities to the extent it should? Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what special steps his Department takes to bring to the attention of industrialists in Scotland and other areas of high unemployment the necessity of using the facilities afforded by research associations and Government laboratories?

Both the D.S.I.R. and the Office of my noble Friend publicise the work of the research associations; and there is later on the Order Paper a Question about the special liaison grants, which has this particular aspect of their work in mind.

Would not my hon Friend agree that this attempt to wave the flag of the Cross of St. Andrew so strongly in science may lead, if it were to be implemented, to action which is highly unscientific? Would he do his best to instil into the minds of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies the fact that it is possible that information gained and research work done in England can be made available in Scotland, too?

I have never myself regarded the Border as an impenetrable barrier to the dissemination of information.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what major conferences between representatives of the Department for Scientific and Industrial Research and grant-aided research organisations have been held since the conference of April, 1961; and what representation from Scotland there has been at those conferences.

There have been no major conferences between representatives of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the grant-aided research associations since the conference in April, 1961.

Is not that a great pity? These conferences were high-lighted in the last Report of the Department and, from the information then given, seemed to be exceedingly valuable. Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that other conferences are held speedily—and that Scotland is adequately represented at them?

As to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, attendance at such conferences has in the past normally been restricted to chairmen and directors of research associations. That would cover the point about the particular persons who might attend. With regard to the first part, I do not think that one wants to have these conferences too often; there is a great deal of follow-up work to be done. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that an unofficial committee of directors of research associations meets about three times a year, whose morn-hers, if they feel it desirable, invite members of the headquarters staff of the D.S.I.R. to attend.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that it is two years since such a conference was held? As these conferences were considered in the Report to be of such value, something might have been done in the meantime.

A great deal has.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how much was spent during 1961–62 in grants under the Department for Scientific and Industrial Research special assistance to industry scheme; and what part of those grants went to industries in Scotland.

£59,675. All the grants were made to research associations, membership of which is open to Scottish firms.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many hon. Members believe that the Department is doing a very good job of work in administering the scheme? Would he agree that this is a good example of some of the advantages of public enterprise, and would he encourage the Department to extend its activities in this regard, with particular reference to Scotland?

I am grateful to the hon. Member—and I know that the D.S.I.R. will be—for the kind words in the first part of his supplementary question. As for the second part, I think that Scottish members of research associations have benefited generally from the increased liaison activities that have been made possible.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science the average number of books and scientific papers on loan per month from the National Lending Library for Science and Technology; and what proportion of current lending is to borrowers in Scotland.

The average number of publications lent by the National Lending Library for Science and Technology is now 11,900 per month; of these, about 4·5 per cent. are lent to borrowers in Scotland.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is an invaluable service, making available in the original language, or translation, knowledge of scientific development all over the world? Is he satisfied that its use is developing as much as he would like, and can he really be satisfied that our universities, our students, and those in industry and elsewhere are making the best possible use of this service?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I could not be more keen on trying to get this Library more widely used, and I hope that this will occur as people learn more about the facilities it can offer.

Is it not up to the Minister, having made the Library available, to publicise as much as possible in the right quarters the fact that it exists, and the range and nature of the publications made available by it?

I think that my noble Friend does that, and has done since the day he opened it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is doing to develop more extensive research into the field of industrial machine design, with a view to countering foreign competition.

The Department has increased its research work at the National Engineering Laboratory, its support of research associations and grants to university graduates and research workers, as well as instituting development contracts. Last July, it set up the Feilden Committee on engineering design.

Is the Minister aware that the Department is not doing sufficient to stop the flooding of our workshops by German machines, some of which I inspected in Coatbridge only a few weeks ago? Does he realise that we have the material and the ingenuity, but not the design? Is it not time that we faced this situation realistically by competing in industrial design with foreign competitors?

I agree that our industrial design position is not all it might be. It is for that reason that the D.S.I.R., at the instigation of my noble Friend, set up the Feilden Committee, whose Report we hope to have soon. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the grant of £140,000 made recently by the D.S.I.R. to the Institute for Advanced Studies in Engineering Sciences at Birmingham University for research into an interdisciplinary approach to the machine design problem. We are doing quite a lot.

Why is Scotland such a backward country?

Is the Minister aware that this Question applies to the whole of Britain? Is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied that sufficient research is being made into industrial design? Is he also satisfied that the machine tool industry in Britain—which includes England—is doing enough research into machine tools? Has he not had complaints time and time again from hon. Members who visit our factories, and find that the plant is made in Western Germany, made in Japan, made in Italy—the factories of a nation that once led the world in machine tool making?

I fully agree that Britain includes both Scotland and England—

And Wales.

—and Wales. While one has to recognise that one cannot expect every single variety of machine tool to be made in this country, I agree with the hon. Lady that research in the machine tool industry has not in the past been all that could be desired. The hon. Lady will remember that the Machine Tool Research Association was recently set up because of representations by the D.S.I.R. to the industry, and enjoys specially favourable grant terms.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the British machine tool industry is increasing its exports every year; and that if hon. Members go round foreign factories they will find many with British machine tools and plant?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have a very fine industry, but the fact remains that an enormous amount of research has to be undertaken, if we are to continue to be ahead and build on the excellent record that the industry has hitherto had.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made with the fast breeder reactor power station.

The power of the experimental fast reactor at Dounreay was raised from 30 MW to 35 MW (thermal) during the last operating period. The Atomic Energy Authority informs me that it hopes shortly to raise the power still further.

Can my hon. Friend indicate when we can expect a commercial power station on this basis?

I think that it will be necessary to build a prototype power-producing reactor that is large enough to demonstrate that the engineering and scientific problems have been successfully overcome. The Authority is investigating the feasibility of this, and will doubtless ask Her Majesty's Government to authorise the building of such a station when it has its plan ready.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) that when Scotland gets the oportunity, as at Dounreay, it can make a very good job of these things?

It is not the job of the Minister to give explanations to one of his hon. Friends.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what were the nature and value of the products exported by the Atomic Energy Authority last year.

During the last financial year, the Authority exported fuel elements and uranium worth£4¾ million, and isotopes worth£4¾ million, making £5½ million in all.

Has my hon. Friend any information whether this figure, and the range of products, is likely to increase?

I have every hope that it will increase, and I have been most impressed by the effort that the Authority is putting into its salesmanship.

What information is at the disposal of our commercial counsellors on the availaible exportable potential?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to commercial counsellors in embassies abroad—

Yes.

—to the best of my knowledge and belief, they have full information, but if the hon. Gentleman has come across a case where he feels that information is deficient, I should be most grateful to him if he would let me know.

Is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the price we are obtaining for the uranium we are exporting compares satisfactorily with the price we have been paying for uranium from Canada?

I think we have to remember that if we are to export fuel elements, we must in our costs reflect the current world price of uranium, irrespective of any price we may happen to have paid.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are the relations between his Department and the Atomic Energy Authority and Euratom; and if he will give a report on recent discussions.

My noble Friend and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority are members of the United Kingdom/Euratom Continuing Committee, set up under the Agreement for Co-operation of 1959. The President of the Commission and one of the Commissioners are the Euratom members. A successful meeting of this Committee was recently held at Ispra, near Milan, at which a number of possibilities for furthering co-operation were considered and remitted to the standing Joint Working Group of officials for further examination.

In view of the preeminence of England and Scotland in the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, what precisely has Euratom to contribute to the United Kingdom in nuclear technology? Will my hon. Friend indicate from his consultations on atomic energy what is the break-even point for nuclear power in Europe?

I should like to have notice of the last part of that supplementary question, because the calculations which Europeans make are ones for which, naturally, I am not responsible. As for the first part, I think that there are many fields where cooperation can be fruitful and where Euratom research may be able to help us, just as our research might be able to help them. I think that we may have an exchange of information on fast reactor developments and on the reprocessing in the United Kingdom of irradiated fuel from Euratom countries and co-operation, particularly in biology and in safety standards.

Apart from this reactor, in what way has Euratom contributed to our knowledge?

If my hon. Friend would like to put a specific Question about the benefits obtained from co-operation hitherto, I would willingly answer it. At a recent meeting of the United Kingdom Euratom Continuing Committee, at which I was present, it was obvious that there were fields where co-operation could be mutually advantageous.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what contacts at present exist between his Department and the European Nuclear Energy Agency; and what are the prospects for the development of further joint projects.

The United Kingdom representative on the Steering Committee for Nuclear Energy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is the head of my noble Friend's Office. The Atomic Energy Authority is participating in two of the three joint projects set up under the European Nuclear Energy Agency. Proposals for three new joint projects are now being studied but it is not possible to say what the outcome will be.

Would not my hon. Friend consider the European Agency, the International Agency and Euratom to overlap substantially, and is it profitable to belong to all three? Would my hon. Friend also give us some idea about our financial commitments to the European agency?

I think that it is useful to belong to all three. Both the European Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Agency cover different groups of countries and do not have the same aims. As for the last part of the supplementary question, if my hon. Friend would agree to putting down a detailed Question I would give him any figures at my disposal.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what research is being carried out into the visual defects of drivers of vehicles and the effect on road safety.

A small amount of research in this field is in progress in independent institutions. Although no Government laboratory is currently engaged in such research the position is at present under review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of responsible organisations are coming more and more to the conclusion that certain visual defects, such as tunnel vision and narrowness of vision, are having effects on road safety? Is he aware that a sample survey of drivers the other day revealed that 25 per cent. of them had some visual defect or other? Would my hon. Friend agree that further research is required to discover whether statistics show that these defects have the effect on road safety that is believed?

My noble Friend will discuss the research possibilities with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. After that it may be possible to discover whether there are any openings where fruitful work might be done.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will now state the terms of the redundancy provisions to be offered by the Atomic Energy Authority to staff with professional qualifications.

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the document which sets out the scheme in detail.

Is my hon. Friend, who shares the representation of Aldermaston with me, reasonably satisfied that these redundancy terms are fair and reasonable? Is he satisfied that when there are vacancies for professional staff and others at Harwell and other atomic stations these are offered first to those who are no longer required at Aldermaston? There seems to be some doubt about this.

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I believe that the terms are very reasonable and that with one minor reservation they have been accepted by the staff side. On the second part of the question, we look upon the Authority as one employer and we do our best by redeployment to prevent redundancy occurring.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the national interest, he will consider using the land, transport and labour resources of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire for increased afforestation, and for the integrated milling of wood pulp and paper.

It is the Government's policy to increase afforestation through the Forestry Commission and to encourage wood-using industries.

The mill at Fort William towards which the Government are contributing loan capital of about £8 million to £10 million and which will cost some £19 million to £20 million in all as well as other existing wood-using industries, should for some time to come provide an outlet for wood grown in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty. But the Commission is always seeking suitable land to extend its operations.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the greatest obstacle to afforestation in these three counties is the unwillingness of the sporting landlords to grow trees themselves or to permit the Forestry Commission to grow them? Is he also aware that I spent a fortnight in the constituency, coming back on Sunday, and I met all the forestry officials, who were unanimous in this view? In view of this neglect, may I ask the Prime Minister to deal with this as a matter of national urgency?

The Forestry Commission is always looking for opportunities to extend its forests, but it is important to balance this with the proper outlets.

Can the Prime Minister say whether the Forestry Commission is satisfied with the amount of land it has and, if not, whether the Government will take steps to assist the Commission? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, with a view to improving transport and providing more employment in the Highlands, he will set up a Highlands development authority?

The second part of the question is entirely different, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper. As for the first part, nobody is ever satisfied, but I think that good progress is being made.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Lord Privy Seal to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on 7th May concerning the breakdown of the negotiations for Britain's entry to the European Economic Community represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that this extraordinary speech, in which the Minister responsible for the negotiations for Britain to join the Common Market confirmed that Britain could not join a Europe which was protectionist, showed that the terms which we were being asked to accept were humiliating, and that this is a complete vindication of those of us who opposed Britain going in on these terms? Does not this confirm that Britain cannot re-apply to join, and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the almost complete acceptance of these humiliating terms has done irreparable harm to the Commonwealth and to Britain's standing in Europe and the world?

No, Sir, all these deductions are quite false.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will propose to President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev the publication of their recent exchange of letters;

(2) whether he will now state the new proposals to be put to the Geneva Conference on nuclear tests with a view to ending the present deadlock.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the readiness of the United States Government, as now revealed by the publication of the testimony given on 26th February before the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering at the Pentagon, to accept only six on-site inspections after disturbances possibly caused by nuclear tests, he will make a new approach to Mr. Khrushchev and President Kennedy in an endeavour to secure a test-ban agreement.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest British proposals for securing an agreement banning nuclear tests.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now indicate the nature of the reply received by himself and Mr. Kennedy to their letter to Mr. Khrushchev regarding the stopping of nuclear test explosions; and what policy Her Majesty's Government will now adopt in order to reach an agreement.

As my right hon. Friend the First Secretary told the House on 23rd May, President Kennedy and are still considering what our next step should be in the light of Mr. Khrushchev's reply to our communication. Our correspondence with Mr. Khrushchev was confidential, so that it would be inappropriate for me to say anything more at this stage.

In view of the fact that it is now estimated that there are 20 countries which soon will be able to manufacture their own nuclear weapons, does not the whole problem become one of considerable urgency? Would the Prime Minister consider in his consultations with President Kennedy the desirability of renewing the offer made some time ago to Mr. Khrushchev for immediate banning of all atmospheric and sea-water tests pending the solution of the problem of underground tests? If Mr. Khrushchev refuses, would the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting President Kennedy on the making of a unilateral moratorium on the part of the two countries in respect of these tests?

I have great sympathy, of course, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he knows. We would be ready at any time—we have made it quite clear—to agree to a general ban on atmospheric tests. That has not been acceptable so far to the Soviet Government. Therefore, we are still pressing on with the hope of getting a total ban. I hope within a very few days to agree with the President on the reply which we are making to Mr. Khrushchev, and I think that it would be better to leave it there for the moment.

With regard to the testimony referred to in Question No. Q5, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that this statement, made under conditions of secrecy by a senior expert adviser to the United States Administration, represents one step forward on the American side? Would the right hon. Gentleman do his best to take advantage of this slightly increased flexibility?

Yes, Sir. I am sure that we would try to find every possible means to reach an agreement, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me. Within a day or two I hope to agree to the reply we propose to make and I hope that that will lead to some forward step.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in Ottawa last week that the United States at present possesses a very great superiority in nuclear weapons and nuclear strength over all other Powers? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a Power in such a position has a special obligation to make concessions to try to secure a general test ban agreement, and does he not think that that would justify the British Government m putting forward proposals of this nature to try to secure agreement?

I think that the course I have been pursuing for the past three months is the one most likely to lead to some settlement. It is quite easy to make a unilateral statement, but that does not necessarily lead to the result we want. I hope very much that the procedure upon which we are about to engage will be the most fruitful.

Since the differences are manifestly so small, what is really preventing agreement? Is it that neither the American nor the Russian Government genuinely want it and that our Government will not give an independent lead?

No, Sir; that is a quite wrong account of the situation. There are two problems still to be resolved, both the number of inspections and their character.

Will my right hon. Friend in the meantime make clearer to the world in general, since some American senators and a lot of people in this country do not seem to understand, that for very many months now the British and the Americans have offered to ban all tests everywhere, except underground, without any verification whatever?

Yes, Sir. That has always been our position. I am glad that this has been brought out. The Soviet Government are not ready to agree to a partial ban and, therefore, we are still trying to get a total ban.

It is understandable that these discussions must for the moment continue most helpfully on a confidential basis, but is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether the reply from Mr. Khrushchev showed that he was to any extent forthcoming about suggestions for a high-level meeting between Heads of Government to discuss the final differences which still stand in the way of a test ban agreement?

I think that I ought not to answer that question. We have made a number of proposals, and in the light of Mr. Khrushchev's reply, we are hoping to make an answer which may take up at least one of them. Then we shall, perhaps, make a little progress.

asked the Prime Minister what comments or assurances he has received from the United States Administration in response to the views, warnings, and recommendations contained in the report made to Her Majesty's Government on the effects of high-altitude nuclear explosions on scientific experiments.

The United States Government appreciate that scientists may well wish to put forward views on experiments that may have possible harmful effects. They have on a number of occasions declared their willingness, subject to defence considerations, to take account of these views. One such statement of American policy is annexed to the working party's report.

Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister has now received a firm assurance from Washington that there will be consultation with scientists internationally, including such scientists as Sir Bernard Lovell, before there are any more of these high-altitude tests?

No, Sir, I should not go so far as that; but the United States Government are quite aware of our position and, subject to the overriding needs of security, I am quite confident that they will take all these matters into consideration.

In view of the very startling statement made in this report of British scientists, have the Government specifically asked the American Government for an assurance that they would not embark on such tests without consultations with us?

No, Sir. I should not try, and I should not lend myself to trying, to prevent something if it is really of great national security importance.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Foreign Secretary at Ottawa on 21st May on the subject of an independent nuclear deterrent represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Since the Foreign Secretary said that Britain intended to be strong enough and rich enough to support an independent nuclear deterrent plus conventional forces, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government think that they can possibly do this without a tremendous strain on the British economy? Further, will he say whether the Government still adhere to their policy that they are prepared to go into a nuclear war without the support of America and without the support of the N.A.T.O. countries?

We debated all these matters at length in a two-day debate, and I think that they are much better dealt with in that way than by Question and Answer.

Does not the Opposition's policy in this respect rule out any question of the independent lead for which they have been asking in the series of Questions just passed, and would it not, in fact, face the people of this country with a choice between defeat or dependence?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that that speech of the noble Lord specifically rejected the argument used by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, when we debated this matter in the House, that we could not trust our allies in this respect? Would not the Government be wise to publish the real reason for their nuclear deterrent policy, namely, the desperate but ill-founded hope that it may prove a useful instrument for catching votes?

No, Sir; it is based upon what we believe to be our national duty.

Did not the Foreign Secretary welcome the concept of a mixed-manned nuclear force which would be under general control, not necessarily under British control? Does not that dispose of the concept of the British independent deterrent?

No, Sir, no more than it disposes of the concept of an American independent deterrent.

Has the Prime Minister seen in a Sunday newspaper the long list of quotations showing that, on the subject of the noble Lord's speech, the Government speak with one voice when talking to their allies but with another voice for political purposes at home? Since the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord claim to have an independent deterrent, which is to be manufactured in America anyway, will he say whether he thinks that President Kennedy thinks that we have got an independent British deterrent?

Yes, Sir; it was that arrangement which I made with him at Nassau.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked the Prime Minister to comment upon the Opposition's policy as though he were responsible for it. Is it not a rule of the House that Ministers may answer only for malters within their own responsibility, not the responsibility of others?

It is extremely tedious to ask people to interpret other people's views or thoughts, but it wastes a lot of time to pull up all questions which are out of order.

asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of his reply to the letter sent to him last week by the Scottish Trades Union Congress concerning the employment situation in Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the representations made to him last week by the Scottish Trades Union Congress concerning the serious economic situation in Scotland.

In its letter the Scottish Trades Union Congress referred principally to the importance to the Scottish economy of stimulating activity in shipbuilding. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is making a statement on this subject tomorrow, and I shall be replying to the Scottish Trades Union Congress letter shortly thereafter.

Was not the letter more generalised than that? Did it not refer to the fact that jobs were not being created sufficiently quickly enough to take up the slack in the Scottish economy? Does not the Prime Minister know that, even after the winter is over, there are more than 100,000 still unemployed in Scotland and only 11,000 vacancies? Is it not this which concerned the Scottish T.U.C.? Cannot the Prime Minister match with deeds the fine words he has given to the Scottish T.U.C. in recent months?

As everyone knows, the very large series of measures which we have instituted—I shall not trouble the House by reviewing them again—has made a very great contribution, which, as the months go by, will, I believe, help to solve the short-term problem. This is dealing rather with the longer-term problem.

Is the Prime Minister aware that what he calls the large series of measures was described very temperately by the Scottish Trades Union Congress as a modicum of minor measures? Is he aware, also, that the day following that letter, the position was absolutely clarified by the publication of the unemployment figures showing that in mid-May there were over 103,000 unemployed in Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, just last week, he announced that the areas which pioneered the first Industrial Revolution would participate fully in the next industrial revolution? When does he propose to make a start in Scotland?

Very large measures have been started, and, as everyone knows, the prospects are good.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he advised the use of an Order in Council whose object is to set aside the judgment of the West Africa Court of Appeal, which declared elections in certain constituencies in Gambia to be invalid; and whether, in view of the nature of such a precedent, he will now reconsider his statement published on 21st May and authorise the holding of fresh elections in the constituencies concerned.

With permission, I will now answer Question No. 79.

In order to explain my decision, I must give the House the facts which lie behind it.

The Gambia is made up of two areas, the Protectorate and the Colony. It has a House of Representatives, three-quarters of whose members represent the Protectorate and one-quarter the Colony. The difficulty which has arisen relates to the register of voters in the Protectorate. The Colony has a separate register, the validity of which is not in question.

The first register of voters in the Protectorate was compiled in 1959, but it was subsequently found to be very faulty. This was largely due to the fact that the names had originally been written down in Arabic script and then transliterated into Roman script, in the course of which a large number of names became so corrupted as to be unidentifiable.

It was, therefore, decided in 1961 to compile an entirely fresh register; and an amending law was introduced, the purpose of which was to substitute the new 1961 register for the defective 1959 register. This law was passed with the support of both Government and Opposition parties.

In 1962, a General Election, held on this new register, resulted in the defeat of the United Party Government. Although it was their Government which had introduced the amending law in 1961, and, although they had never questioned the validity of the register before or during the election, one of their defeated candidates decided afterwards to challenge it in the courts. While the High Court upheld the validity of the new register, the Court of Appeal later reversed this decision, owing to the imprecise drafting of one phrase in the law of 1961. This ruling, of course, at once called in question all the elections in the Protectorate.

Obviously, something had to be done to clear up this confused situation. I considered two possible courses of action. The first was to instruct the Governor to dissolve the House of Representatives and hold fresh elections. But since nobody can seriously recommend reverting to the faulty register of 1959, and since the court has declared the 1961 register to be invalid, it would be necessary before dissolution to compile a new register and that might take a considerable time.

Meanwhile, all the Protectorate members might be unseated and in the absence of any legally valid register, it would be impossible to hold any by-elections. The House of Representatives might thus have been reduced to seven Colony members and four Chiefs' Representatives and it would obviously be improper to leave this wholly unrepresentative rump to determine how the new register should be compiled.

The alternative course was to correct retrospectively the single defective phrase in the law of 1961 so as to give it the effect which both parties had clearly intended, and thereby validate the 1961 register and the elections held on it. Although I dislike as much as most hon. Members retrospective legislation, I decided that, in all the circumstances, it would be best to adopt this second course. I would, naturally, have preferred that the necessary amendment to the law of 1961 should be made by the Gambia House of Representatives itself. But, since the validity of the elections of three-quarters of its members is in doubt, the validity of any law it might pass would be in doubt, also. Thus, it seemed that the only sure method was to proceed by Order in Council. I shall, therefore, shortly be submitting a draft Order to Her Majesty for this purpose.

I hope that the House will agree that, in view of the complex legal and constitutional tangle with which I was faced, the course that I have decided upon is fair and reasonable.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his most detailed reply which itself shows that there are serious constitutional issues at stake here. Would not he agree that it is, in general terms, and I should have thought even in this particular instance, extremely serious to set aside a ruling of a court by administrative action in a part of the world in which we are at least trying to show how important it is to maintain the rule of law?

We are not setting aside a decision of the court. What we are doing is to pass legislation—something which very often happens—which has been shown to be necessary by a decision of the court. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) to say that this is setting aside the law. This is not the first time that elections which have been shown to be invalid have been validated. It has happened in this House of Commons within the memory of those sitting here, and there is nothing improper in that.