asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a press cuttings library, covering all the foreign and domestic issues likely to be discussed in the House of Commons, to be made available to all Members of Parliament.

The provision of a press cuttings library is a matter for the House authorities in the first place.

On a point of order. May I respectfully ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Question No. 1? As I understand it, Sir, the responsibility for the Library is still yours. Therefore, is this Question properly addressed at this juncture to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

On the face of it, the Question does not ask about the House of Commons Library, which comes under my jurisdiction. That is the distinction, I think.

May I respectfully remind you that this matter has been considered by the Library Committee and that recommendations have been made to you, particularly last Session. Surely, with great respect, the question of a cuttings library, which is really part of the Library facilities of this House, should be governed by you?

No. With great respect, the points are different. I know quite well what the Library Committee has been discussing about a press cuttings library. The point is that this Question does not relate to the House of Commons Library.

Will the Minister bear in mind that this service would help hon. Members to do their work far more effectively, and will he consult the Library Committee, which, as he has said, has been discussing this matter in the last 12 months?

On present information, it is doubtful whether the demand for a press cuttings library is such as to justify the expense of introducing and maintaining the service.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the Purchase Tax on school pupils' footwear, in view of the apparent anomalies it creates; and if he will make a statement.

The greater part of the footwear worn by school pupils is already exempt as young children's clothing. I am afraid that this exemption is bound to be accompanied by anomalies however one attempts to define "a young child". There is little doubt that older persons already benefit in terms of tax relief from the existing favourable definition.

Is the Minister aware that fixing an arbitrary size of school footwear and imposing Purchase Tax on sizes in excess leads to anomalies whereby, for example, well-built young school pupils are being taxed on footwear while more petite older girls are fully exempted? Is this not an anomaly to which the Minister should apply his mind to removing at the earliest moment?

Certainly anomalies do result, as I have indicated. The trouble is that there is no better definition available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a Pensions Increases Act giving parity to public service pensioners will be introduced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to help public service pensioners.

The Government are considering the position of public service pensioners. I have no announcement to make at present.

May I ask my hon. Friend—[Laughter.]—I am, perhaps, being a litle more polite than some people were yesterday. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether I am right in assuming that there will be an Act covering the promises and pledges, very frequently given during the election campaign, that parity will be attached to the public service pensions, and may I ask when we are going to hear that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Well, certainly not today. I do not think that I can anticipate the contents of a future pensions increase Measure today.

As the policy revealed in the Queen's Speech is likely to be so inflationary, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety of public service pensioners to get parity as soon as possible? In any event, can he assure us that when the Government cover this point, they will try to have biennial reviews?

As to the first part of the question, of course that will be taken into account. As to the second part, I will certainly see that it is given the fullest consideration.

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not acknowledge that a great injustice exists for those public service pensioners who have been retired for a long time on pensions based on small salaries? Does he realise that this is a grave and urgent matter, and will he be prepared to receive a deputation from the Public Service Pensioners Council quite soon to discuss the question of parity?

I am conscious that this has been a matter of criticism for a long time, going back even prior to 15th October. As to the second part of the question, I will be only too glad to receive a deputation if that is the wish of the hon. Member.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many one-man businesses declare a net income of less than £500 a year.

The latest available figures of assessments on trading profits and professional earnings are for 1961–62 and they relate, broadly speaking, to the earnings in 1960. The number of cases where the net true income assessed was less than £500 a year amounted to 851,900. The figures of net true income are after deduction of capital allowances. I would remind my hon. Friend that some of these assessments are on subsidiary earnings and some are for only part of a year, while they exclude all income of the taxpayer from any other source.

Is there not something odd and, perhaps, even fishy about those figures? Do they not reveal that a substantial number of people are either understating their income or, alternatively, not deriving much benefit from the so-called affluence of thirteen years of Tory rule?

As to the first part of the question, it is not at all evident from the figures for the reasons which I have already given. The record of efficiency of tax inspectors in this country in assessing trading profits compares favourably with the record of other countries.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to tax the income arising from those ancient toll bridges which at present pay no tax.

I regret that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement my right hon. Friend will make tomorrow nor the one he will make in the spring.

I rather expected a reply like that. Does the Minister realise that there is in my constituency a toll bridge the tolls of which were created in 1766 and that ever since then they have been tax-free, death duty-free and rate-free? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that between now and the next Budget, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look seriously at this matter?

This matter was aired considerably in the last Parliament, as the hon. Member will remember. I certainly give an assurance that we will look at the matter.

Can my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if I put down a new Clause to the Finance Bill, which will be coming before the House in a short while, he and the Government will accept it?

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give him an assurance in the form in which he asks. He will, no doubt, recall the interest that was shown in the Amendment which he put down to the last Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names, salaries and conditions of service, and the qualifications of persons who have been engaged in an advisory capacity to assist the Prime Minister and other Ministers or Departments.

With permission, I shall circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that these people have been informed that they are all subject to the Official Secrets Act and the instructions as to official behaviour which apply to established civil servants?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the tax position of the Clacton Town Football Club, and the present

Yes, certainly, that is done.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these salaries are based on Civil Service salaries or technical Civil Service salaries or whether they are specially negotiated?

The hon. Member will see that where there are salaries, they are set out in full in the table—

That does not answer my question.

—and that in one case there is no salary at all.

In view of the fact that the economic advice hitherto tendered by, for instance, Dr. Kaldor to overseas Governments has usually resulted in a situation of near riots and almost of revolution—I am thinking particularly of British Guiana—is it wise in these circumstances to pay outside economists of foreign extraction to create chaos in Britain?

Who is a racialist now?

Even if the premise of the hon. Member's question is true, I am sure that he would not want us to fall into the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before imposing the 15 per cent. import surcharge, he discussed with the Northern Ireland Government the possible effects of this surcharge on the economy of Northern Ireland.

We are in very close contact with the Northern Ireland Government, but it is not customary to consult them in advance about changes in Customs duties or other reserved taxes.

While there may be no constitutional obligation to consult in this case, would it not have been wiser so to do in view of the fact that there are quite a few industries in Northern Ireland whose raw material is adversely affected and whose employment is likely to be affected, including a large tannery in my constituency? Will the Minister look at special cases?

The hon. and gallant Member will realise the difficulties which were in our way about consultation with any other Governments over the imposition of these charges. We have received a letter from the Northern Ireland Government dealing with some of the matters to which the hon. and gallant Member refers and I assure him that it is receiving close consideration.

What were the difficulties about consultation with the Northern Ireland Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well—the reasons have already been explained fully in debate—what were the difficulties in the way of consultation.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Northern Ireland is now one of the centres of the man-made fibre industry? Has he evaluated what will be the result to this industry of the surcharge and, indeed, its effect upon employment.

All questions as to the effect of the surcharges—or, to give them their right name, temporary charges—on Northern Ireland are under discussion with the Northern Ireland Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in future he will publish details of Government borrowing from overseas sources at monthly or quarterly intervals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was borrowed by Her Majesty's Government from foreign central banks in the six months before 15th October. 1964, and how much has been borrowed since.

It has not been the practice to disclose in the past the amount of transactions in recent months. I am considering future policy on this matter and would prefer not to commit myself to any fixed procedure for the present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has expressed a far more moderate view than that disclosed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) of suppressing this information although it has been normal practice before not to publish? Is not this practice also likely to be the normal practice in future?

I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to amend Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, to remove the discrimination it contains between the treatment of widowers and widows and that of unmarried persons.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has studied the views, a copy of which has been sent to him, of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the distinction made between a widow and an unmarried person by Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1952; and what steps he intends to take in this matter.

I can say no more than that I have noted the views of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs on this point.

When considering those views, will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is anomalous to have a situation of two elderly ladies living in retirement side by side with housekeepers, one of whom, because she is a widow, gets the allowance but the other of whom, because she happens to be single, does not?

We are well aware of the anomaly to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. It is a matter which has been considered for a long time. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that the Royal Commission on Taxation suggested a rather different solution to his, namely, that the allowance should be withdrawn from widows and widowers without a young child.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the clubs in my constituency at Carrickfergus and Lisburn strongly support this recommendation? Will he consider it seriously, because it has a great deal of national backing throughout the whole country?

Most certainly, we will consider it very carefully.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now restrict imports of non-essential luxuries and semi-luxuries, rather than restricting essential industrial imports for further manufacturing purposes.

In general, these imports are subject to the import charge

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that certain commodities essential for our manufacturing industries, and thence for exports, are not available in this country? Is it not inequitable that such commodities should be exposed to the same kind of restrictions on imports as are luxury and semi-luxury goods? Will he take steps as quickly as possible to remove this imposed barrier on our export performance?

One of the purposes of the temporary charge is to encourage the manufacture at home of articles which at the moment are only available from abroad. The effect of the import cuts at the moment is spread evenly. If we had exempted all imports used by industry, the range of imports subject to the charge would have been reduced by about two-thirds, which would have put a quite unfair burden on the rest.

Would it be right to draw the conclusion that it is not the intention to place the surcharge on anything that cannot be made in this country?

No. That would be quite wrong.

If import charges are only temporary, how can they do any good to the economy?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that we can impose charges of this kind only on a temporary basis. We believe that the country will respond to the opportunity provided by it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that these charges were spread evenly over all imports, but, of course, this is not so in the case of paper. The duty is imposed on imported paper but not on imported pulp for making paper. This is causing the greatest anomalies among firms using either paper or pulp. Those using paper have to pay the surcharge while those using pulp do not.

The Question on the Order Paper was not directed to raw materials. Pulp is, of course, included in the surcharge as a raw material.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will put in hand a comprehensive review of the rating system in order to ensure that the growing burden of rates is more fairly shared throughout the community.

We are examining the whole question of local government finance, including the rating system.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the pre-election promises of the Prime Minister, the fact that the Queen's Speech has only an oblique reference to the subject indicates that it will have low priority in the Government's programme? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a very fair measure of social justice if the present unfair and rather discriminatory tax on owner-occupiers were abolished for something shared more evenly throughout the community?

I do not think that this exchange adds anything at the moment. I have said that we are examining the whole question.

When the examination takes place, will the hon. Gentleman take particular care to see that regard is had to the position of towns in which there is an over-average proportion of elderly and retired people—towns such as Weymouth, which feel strongly on this matter?

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that what he is referring to is not the question of the spread of population but the spread of industry. Large numbers of retired people are generally found in places where there is less than the normal amount of industry. That is a very important aspect and will be fully taken into account.

Can we have a specific assurance, following the Gracious Speech, that the review will be instituted during the coming Session?

I can go much further. The review has already started.

Will my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain how long these anomalies, which are giving rise to such anxiety opposite, have been in existence and what attempts have been made in the past 13 years to remove any of them?

I am not in a position to answer fully the second part of that question. But my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and, indeed, other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can draw their own conclusions about the first part. I believe that these anomalies existed before 15th October.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in reviewing arrangements for local government finance, he will make a special study of the problems of areas with little or no manufacturing industry, such as seaside towns.

The general examination will cover the effect of factors of this kind on the finances of local authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only do the seaside towns contain many old people living on small fixed incomes, but that in many cases workpeople there earn less than their counterparts elsewhere because of the seasonal nature of their employment? Will he bear that in mind in making his review?

Yes. All these matters will be taken fully into account.

Can I ask my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not embarking on any new designation. I want to know whether in this review, which was originally started by the last Government, the differentiation and variation in the assessments done by different valuation officers under revaluation will be looked at, as some houses have been undervalued and some over-valued, especially those in seaside towns occupied by people living on small fixed incomes? Has the hon. Gentleman any jurisdiction over assessments made by valuation officers?

May I say straight away that, unusual as it is for an occupant of this seat to receive such regular and warm regard from the hon. Lady, I welcome it very much? Her question dealt with the problem of valuation rather than with the question of a review. The machinery of valuation is not thought to be unsatisfactory, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady has said.

In view of the friendly attitude of the hon. Lady, expressed on two occasions, will my hon. Friend make her a P.P.S.?

I think that these advances should be restricted at Question Time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the extra cost to the agricultural industry of the 15 per cent. surcharge on potash.

In a full year the levy imposed by the charge would amount to approximately £1½ million. It cannot be estimated how much of this would be passed on to the agricultural industry.

Why have the Government imposed this charge on what is virtually a raw material and one which cannot be produced in this country? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, unless it is imported, food production will fall? Did he consult the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland before taking this precipitate action?

Potash was not excluded because it did not fall within the category of raw materials, but representations have been received about it and many other cases for exemption. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement tomorrow.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that any part of the surcharge falling upon agriculture will be taken into account in the next price review?

No. I cannot give such an assurance.

Why not?

Because it is not my responsibility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider lifting the 15 per cent. surcharge on the Norwegian-built fishing vessels already ordered to be imported into this country in the next eight weeks.

My right hon. Friend will deal with this new charge in his Budget statement tomorrow. If the hon. Member will let me have details of the case he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the Chancellor will lift the surcharge or ease it in some way? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that these boats were already ordered before the charge was put on? Is he aware that the only result will be to increase the cost to a very vital basic industry? What consultations did the Government have with our Norwegian friends before imposing the surcharge?

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to the second part of that Supplementary Question. It is well known—it received much publicity—that we were not able to consult. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have already answered that question. With regard to the first part of his Supplementary Question, he will appreciate that my reply was not designed to give information and therefore I cannot give any now.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that vessels are being built in Poland for the fishing industry? If he sees my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), will he also see me at the same time?

Yes, certainly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has issued to secure the further dispersal of Government Departments out of the Greater London area.

The Government will be making a substantial direct contribution to the relief of congestion in London. We plan to move over 19,000 Civil Service jobs away from the London area during the next few years, which will mean that out of a total of some 130,000 headquarters staff over 50,000 will be right outside Greater London. In addition, we are studying the possibility of dispersing a substantial number of jobs from the Ministry of Defence.

From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it would appear that fewer people are to be moved out of London by this Government than were moved by the last Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. That is according to the figures the hon. Gentleman has just given. If the Government are restricting office building in London, would they not make a considerable contribution towards easing office congestion in London by getting large numbers of civil servants out of the capital?

The figures I have given indicate that the Government are making a very serious contribution to the solution of a very serious problem.

Will the Government reconsider the position of the Post Office Savings Bank employees at Kew, who are being forcibly asked to move to Glasgow in the coming two years?

That question is under active consideration at the moment.

Can I have an assurance that discussions which have already taken place on the part which Swindon can play in helping to deal with this problem will not be overlooked?

Nothing to do with Swindon could possibly be overlooked.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further question relating to business expenses he proposes to add to those already contained in Inland Revenue form P.11D.

I have no statement to make on this matter at present.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this form relating to business expenses contains about 100 lines of closely written questions relating to travel, meals, cars, houses, goods, services, servants, education, sporting facilities—apparently grouse moors, which are already heavily taxed—and that there is a penalty of £500 for evasion? In view of what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to Question No. 4 and as there is surely very little scope for evasion because of the efficiency of the tax collectors, what possible further revenue does he hope to get from this source?

I note the complaints which the hon. Gentleman has made against this form, which rests on Sections 160 and 168 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, from which one draws the conclusion that the previous Government thought that the form was necessary.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will place more orders in the development area of Coat-bridge and Airdrie, in view of the high unemployment in that area; and if he will make a statement.

I am glad to say that this area has won orders valued at £1½ million since April 1963. Tenders from firms in the area will continue to be invited in all suitable cases and to enjoy special consideration under the normal development district preference arrangement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this area is facing large-scale redundancy since the firm concerned is outside the ring of telephone manufacturers and is guaranteed only a one year's contract, with the workers having only a one year's job, against five years for ring manufacturers? Is it not time to dispense with this practice and for areas such as this to receive more favourable treatment in this respect, especially as there is already three times the national average of unemployment in the locality?

I can tell my hon. Friend that I am looking at bulk supply agreements in any case, but Airdrie Electronics has been given an opportunity to make 25 per cent. of the total requirements for the Post Office although the figure which it quoted to us was above the competitive tender. On the general question of the bulk supply firms, 20 per cent. of their goods are made in development districts where unemployment is above the national average.

asked the Postmaster-General what criteria he will require on the issue of a new postage stamp.

I am currently reviewing Post Office policy with regard to the issue of postage stamps and will make a statement later.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a postage stamp to commemorate the appointment of the Prime Minister? He is, after all, a unique case in that he is the first Prime Minister since Bonar Law to have been educated at a grammar school, and under the new policies presumably the last.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are all looking forward to 25th January to see whether there will be a new line in Government policy towards the celebration of the birthday of Robert Burns?

A Burns stamp is one of the issues which I am considering.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow.

Yes, Sir. The decision to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow still stands.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Scotland will be glad that he has followed the excellent decision taken by the former Government?

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer? Is he aware that one of the reasons for the transfer to Glasgow was the high unemployment in that city? Is he further aware that there is a considerable amount of concern over what would appear to be the delay in carrying out the transfer? Perhaps he could indicate the cause of the delay.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the decision to confirm this move, but I am sure he will recognise that a move of this kind, carried out at a time when the Post Office Savings Bank is being computerised, and when one has to maintain a high quality of service to the customers of the Bank, involves delicate matters. The Post Office has a proud record of transferring other departments, one to Chesterfield and another to Durham, and the good will of the staff is as important in this as it can possibly be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are delighted to hear his statement, but I am not certain whether he was in the House when his hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in answering a supplementary Question, said that the matter was under consideration. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain of his statement?

My hon. Friend was quite properly leaving it to me to answer the Question put down by the noble Lady. It would have been most improper if he had answered a question which principally affects Post Office policy.

asked the Postmaster-General what are his plans for the old telephone exchange at Robertsbridge.

The house, which was used for the old telephone exchange, and some of the land will be sold as soon as possible.

As the house has now been unoccupied for a matter of two years and as I drew the attention of the Post Office to this matter about 12 months ago, may I urge that something should be done about it urgently?

Yes. A certain amount of work still has to be done by way of new fencing and lavatories and extending the existing access drive, but thereafter the house will be sold as soon as possible.

asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended that Goole telephone exchange will become automatic; and what effect this will have on the number of staff employed.

We plan to open the new automatic exchange, with STD, in the spring of 1968; no operators will then be required at Goole, but we foresee no difficulty in arranging for the existing staff to be absorbed at other exchanges in the region.

Is there any way in which this bigger exchange can be converted before 1968, which seems rather a long time ahead?

There is a heavy programme of similar work in that Post Office region much of which is necessary to provide customers with a telephone service. This job can be expedited only at the expense of other work of a more pressing character.

asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for a telephone are outstanding in Goole, Thorne and Knottingley; and what are the dates of the oldest applications.

Leaving aside orders being met, there were respectively 3, 1 and 20 outstanding applications in the areas served by the Goole, Thorne and Knottingley exchanges at 31st October, 1964. The oldest applications are dated 4th June, 1964, in Goole, 26th September, 1964, in Thorne and 16th January, 1961, in Knottingley. Of these three applications that in Goole will be met in the middle of next year, and those in Thorne and Knottingley within the next three months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are local allegations that bookmakers' offices can be supplied with additional telephones without any delay whatever, while normal households and businesses have the experience of a long delay before they can get a telephone? Will he do something to put that right?

If my hon. Friend has any particular case, perhaps he will give us some information about it and we will have the matter investigated.

Does not the Answer which we have just heard indicate that the recent investment programme in telephones is now bearing fruit and that the waiting list has been cut? Should I remind the Postmaster-General—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I remind—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask for an assurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—that the Postmaster-General will maintain the right priorities in the capital investment programme in the future?

asked the Postmaster-General what are his plans for the production of a cheap loudspeaker telephone.

The Post Office already supplies loudspeaking telephones which amplify speech in both directions for as little as £2 a quarter and others which amplify incoming speech for 15s. a quarter. An improved model is being developed, but it is too early to say when it is likely to become generally available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that that service is advertised? When I asked the telephone authorities in the Palace of Westminster about it, they said that there was no such service.

I shall look into this in connection with the advertising policy of the Post Office generally on advertising lesser known services.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that television programmes continue to give offence by reason of the use of questionable material; and if he will use his powers under the Television Act and the Licence and Agreement to require the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send programmes containing such material.

The powers of the Postmaster-General have always been regarded as reserve powers, for use only in the last resort. Both broadcasting organisations are independent in matters of programme content; and their independence has been repeatedly reaffirmed by successive Governments. I regard the maintenance of this fundamental principle as essential.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the material broadcast in recent years has been damaging to our national prestige? Will he make these organisations realise that they are national institutions and that we do not want our national image to be damaged by pandering too much to the long-haired young men?

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is very unlikely that everyone could agree about the quality of certain programmes. The governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Television Authority are appointed for the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It would be wrong for me to use my powers, though I have them, as any Postmaster-General has, in matters of this kind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the questionable material which gives most offence is the continuous Socialist Party propaganda which seems to be brought into every programme on both channels on every conceivable occasion?

There are differences of opinion on this matter, but I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman following in the tradition set by Sir Waldron Smithers who repeatedly made these charges throughout the period 1945–51.

Will my right hon. Friend try to see that the purposes of these broadcasts are carried out, namely, that there are alternative programmes, and that both channels do not duplicate the programmes of the other. The complaint by many people is that instead of alternative programmes, we get duplicate programmes at the same time.

This is a matter of programme planning rather than censorship, as was implied, and that is a different question. It would be even more undesirable for the Postmaster-General to try to plan the programmes of both channels.

There is a real problem here. There are occasions when the most offensive language is used, and no possible redress can be obtained. We are told that this matter is outside the scope of Government intervention, and that script writers must be given free rein for their artistic urges. Nonetheless, great offence is caused, and some scandal. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that something is done about this matter?

If, by asking whether I will see that something is done, the hon. Gentleman means will I exercise personal censorship over B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes, the answer is "No".

I did not say that.

The question could mean only censorship over things which I, in the exercise of my judgment, thought to be undesirable and worthy of censorship. If the hon. Gentleman thinks more about the problems involved in trying to do what he wants me to do, he will realise that it is much better to leave it to the board of governors of the B.B.C. and members of the I.T.A.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise experimental closed circuit televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons as a possible prelude to full national coverage.

I have the impression that in the previous Parliament there was not anything like a majority of Members in favour of the televising of our proceedings.

We now have many new Members and we should of course move in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. This question could be discussed through the usual channels and I know that, in addition, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be glad to receive the views of individual hon. Members. So long as there is no indication that the majority of the House want our proceedings televised, I do not think there is any point in conducting experiments.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he agrees with the proposition that it is probable that in the long term this development is inevitable? If he does agree, or even if he does not, will he take steps to devise machinery whereby every Member of the House can express his opinion in writing to the Leader of the House?

It is inevitable when, and only when, this House wants it to be carried out. With regard to consultation, I think that the most convenient thing, apart from discussions through the usual channels, is for any hon. Member who wants to express a view to do so to my right hon. Friend or to the authorities on the other side.

Apart from the views expressed by Members of the House, will the Prime Minister take into account any clear expression of the views of the people of the country as a whole as to whether they want such televised programmes?

I think that they are best expressed through the Members they have elected to this House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate immediate all-party talks on the problem of electoral reform.

asked the Prime Minister if he will initiate all-party talks on electoral reform and, in particular, on the reduction of the voting age to eighteen, as recommended by the Youth Commission set up by the Labour Party and presided over by the present Lord Chancellor.

We are considering various proposals for electoral reform, and hope to arrange for discussion between the parties shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is a very satisfactory one, for a change? Will he realise that this is a matter of extreme urgency, as every Member to whom I have talked in this Parliament has some complaints about the antiquated law under which we operate our elections? Will my right hon. Friend undertake these discussions in the most urgent fashion possible?

It is suggested that we have informal talks first, and decide what more formal machinery should be set up, following the precedent of discussions in earlier Parliaments.

Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that both the discussion and the implementation of any electoral reform must take a considerable time, and that if any such reform as that which I mention in my Question No. 16 is to be operative at the next General Election, it should be agreed within the next four years or so?

Yes, Sir. That is very much in mind, but I think that there are some dozens of ideas which have been considered by all parties, and we shall want to look at them all.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement that he is favourably considering the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is greeted with applause by the Liberal Party? Is he also aware that the representation of three million people in this country by nine Members, however eminent they are, is grossly unfair, and we hope that he will move as quickly as he can on this matter?

asked the Prime Minister what changes he has authorised in the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Ministers of Defence for Army, Navy and Air, respectively; and what other changes are being made in the organisation of the Ministry of Defence.

No changes have been made in the relationships between the Secretary of State and the three Ministers of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army also acts as Deputy to the Secretary of State, with a particular responsibility in the field of defence questions affecting the alliance as a whole.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this matter was exhaustively discussed in the closing stages of the last Parliament, when the idea of a deputy was not advanced from either party? Where does the new idea come from?

If this Parliament is to be bound by everything which was done and discussed in the last Parliament, we shall not make very much progress.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the closing stages of the discussion on the Bill creating the present integrated Ministry of Defence it was agreed that all the Ministers concerned should cover functionally any section of the Department of the Ministry of Defence?

Yes, Sir, and this is very much our idea. Already, in addition to their special responsibilities for the Services to which they have been allocated, each of the three Ministers is taking on more and more responsibility of a functional character affecting the Defence Service as a whole.

May I ask a question with regard to the position of the Chief Scientific Officer to the Secretary of State for Defence? I understand that he is now the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister. Is he to do the two jobs now, or only one?

The answer to the question is, "Yes, he will still advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence", though I am not quite sure whether this arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Prime Minister by what authority responsibility for the Forestry Commission has been transferred from the Minister of Agriculture personally, as laid down in the Forestry Act, 1945, to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.

The transfer of responsibility for the Forestry Commission in England and Wales from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will be made by an order under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, and laid before Parliament.

Is not it already laid down by Statute where this power is to go? Is it not undesirable that where the House has made a decision by Statute it should be overruled so easily? While we appreciate that the Prime Minister has been associated with the importation of timber into this country more than with its growth at home, either by the Forestry Commission or by private persons, will he remember that this is an important industry to which many of us attach great importance?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing an assurance given during the passing of the Forestry Act, 1945. An assurance was given only because there was some fear that under the Ministry of Agriculture the Minister would prefer agricultural considerations to those of forestry. The Forestry Commission has now a Minister of its own and it will be even better looked after than in the past.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the relationship between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission remains as it was before?

It remains exactly as it was before.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to laying an Order in Council. Would he confirm that this Order in Council will attract the Affirmative Resolution procedure and that therefore there will be an opportunity for debate and, if necessary, decision by the House?

I believe that is so.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will invite the heads of the Russian and Chinese Governments to a representative international conference in Britain to discuss international disarmament and peace;

(2) if he is aware that the Prime Minister of China has invited President Johnson of the United States of America to take part in a world summit conference to abolish nuclear weapons; if he has received a similar invitation; and what action he proposes to take.

I have received a message from the Chinese Prime Minister, proposing that a summit conference of all countries be convened to discuss nuclear disarmament. This message is being studied and Her Majesty's Government are consulting with other friendly Governments.

Has the Prime Minister any evidence that the Chinese Government have modified their view of the inevitability of war between the Capitalist and Communist countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—Oh, yes—and is it not this belief that is making it impossible for the Americans to co-operate in any general disarmament until the Chinese Government have repudiated that belief that war is inevitable?

I certainly have not received any message from the Chinese Prime Minister reiterating that view.

If the right hon. Gentleman hopes to have negotiations in the near future, will he see that there is a Foreign Secretary in the House to answer Questions?

I have said that we are consulting other friendly Governments on the reply that should be sent to the Chinese Prime Minister's proposals.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister which Department has responsibility for answering Questions dealing with aircraft noise.

Questions about noise from operational Service aircraft, including those of visiting Forces, are for the Ministry of Defence; Questions about noise from all other aircraft are for the Ministry of Aviation. All Questions about research and development aimed at reducing noise of aircraft should be addressed to the Ministry of Aviation.

Yes, but in view of the election promise made by the right hon. Gentleman in a speech at Isleworth on 1st October, will he give instructions to the Minister of Aviation to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, namely, to ban jet night flights into London Airport?

All questions of noise are to be studied by my right hon. Friend. I think the hon. Gentleman has given us a rather free translation of what I actually said at Isleworth in that debate.

In that case may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to dispute the accuracy of the Daily Telegraph report of his speech? He said that noise near London Airport—[HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot do that."]

Order. A Minister cannot be responsible for accepting or contradicting a newspaper report for which he is not responsible.

All I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he in fact intends not only to ban jet flights into London Airport but to provide Government grants for the sound-proofing of all houses near airports where noise is caused?

The Question asks which Department is responsible. It does not raise questions of policy. Of course, we shall deal with questions of policy in due course. Since the hon. Gentleman is so assiduous in his study of newspaper reports, I would refer him to the report in the Financial Times.

The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) was inaccurate. Can he tell us what he did say in his speech?

Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question.

But is the right hon. Gentleman now aware of what he said?

Yes, but it would be out of order to answer on this Question.

Further to the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman, is not it clearly stated in Erskine May that the Leader of the Opposition does not put down Questions on the Order Paper?