asked the President of the Board of Trade when Britain last imported tungsten from China; and in what quantity.

Imports of tungsten ores consigned from China were last recorded in the trade statistics in March and April, 1952, the quantity imported in the two months being 21 tons.

Is it not true to say that tungsten has gone up in price in recent years considerably, and even if it is not desirable to do so now, would the President of the Board of Trade not agree that at some more favourable time in the future it would be useful to import it from China in order, it is hoped, to bring the price down?

The fact is that very little has been on offer from China since the outbreak of the Korean War.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what discrimination other than tariffs is enforced against the entry of British goods into the United States market.

I am not aware of any discrimination against the entry of British goods as such into the United States market.

Is it not the case that there are certain impediments other than tariffs that are levied on foreign goods, and is it not also a fact that in some cases not only are tariffs high, but other imposts are added; and are these not matters which could be usefully discussed at Bermuda? Would the President of the Board of Trade not agree that it is a remarkable tribute to British industry that, in spite of tariffs and other difficulties, British industries, which are often criticised, manage to sell large quantities of goods to the United States?

The Question asked "what discrimination other than tariffs?" I am not aware of any discrimination as between British and other goods, and I think it right to make that plain. There are many impediments to British goods as to goods from all other nations, many more than merely tariffs, and we are constantly calling the attention of the United States Administration to that state of affairs.

Is it not a fact that Congress is not tied by the restrictive clauses of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the same way as we are, and would my right hon. Friend consider now making representations with regard to restoring freedom to the British Government in this matter?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a specific question on the point which he has in mind.

Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that there is discrimination in that British goods, particularly woollen textiles, are marked up in price in the retail shops in America?

If the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to a specific discrimination against British goods as opposed, say, to French or any other goods, I shall be very pleased to look at it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to state, in terms of quantity and dollar value, the amount of woollen cloth exported from the United Kingdom to the United States of America in each of the years 1950, 1951 and 1952.

United Kingdom exports of woollen cloth to the United States were 8·7 million square yards in 1950, 7·9 million in 1951, and 14·3 million in 1952. The values of these exports in United States dollars were 12·8 million, 15·7 million, and 23·2 million, respectively. The wool industry also did a valuable export trade in worsted cloth with the United States in those years.

On a point of order. As this information is always published in the Trade and Navigation Returns, why was the Question allowed upon the Order Paper?

The information is not published in dollars.

While these dollars are of considerable value, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amount would have been greater but for the formidable barrier of American tariffs? Have Her Majesty's Government informed the United States Government that we wish to be allowed the opportunity of exporting more cloth to the U.S.A. and that we earnestly wish to bridge the dollar gap?

Her Majesty's Government have left the United States Administration in no doubt whatever about their desire to expand our exports to dollar areas.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the allocation of contracts to British firms for the Chief Joseph Dam project.

Yes, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of congratulating the English Electric Company on securing the contract for the transformers worth some 1¾ million dollars for the Chief Joseph Dam project. The generator contract, worth some 4¼ million dollars, was awarded to an American company, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, who reduced their original bid by over 600,000 dollars after they had been given a second opportunity to tender.

While thanking the President of the Board of Trade for that answer, may I ask him if he does not agree that it is a remarkable tribute to the British engineering industry that in the face of world-wide competition and the competition of the main American firms this British firm succeeded in obtaining this contract?

Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the specification was exactly the same in the second tender, because if it was, then quite clearly the reduction by the Westinghouse Company was grossly unfair and contrary to normal good trade practice?

I would say that neither in the original specification nor in the second invitation were the quantities or weights of materials to be used specified, which was one of the excuses put forward for the second round of tenders.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to make a statement on the question of Anglo-Brazilian trade.

I cannot say. The recent Ministerial changes in Brazil have naturally delayed the exploratory discussions which have been taking place, but I understand that those discussions will soon be resumed.

Does not the President of the Board of Trade realise that this is a most important matter, particularly for a great number of our exporters? Does he not think that his Department has had sufficient time to reach a conclusion on the matter, because the problem has been before us since July or August of 1951?

I can only wish that this was a matter exclusively within the control of my own Department, but we are engaged on very difficult negotiations with the Government of Brazil and I am not able to say when a successful outcome can be announced.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the progress of the trade talks with the Spanish representatives.

Not yet, Sir. The talks are still in progress.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when the talks will be concluded? If I put down a Question in similar terms in a week or fortnight's time, will he then be able to give a report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman can try.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any indications that the Spanish Government are prepared to take a larger quota of British films?

I am engaged in the conversations at this very moment, and I should be wrong to begin giving a partial account of them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued by the Spanish Government during this year for the import of goods from Britain; and if he is satisfied that this bears a generally fair ratio to the treatment accorded to other countries.

The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available but United Kingdom recorded exports to Spain and the Spanish Possessions in the first four months of this year amounted to some £95 million. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him on 26th March and 11th June last.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the reports in the Press of the number of licences issued in Spain for the importation of British goods, which is usually nil, whereas the licences issued for German goods amount to about 76 a week and over the last three weeks have been more than 1,000 as against 26 for British goods? Is there any truth in these reports?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to the specific figures before I comment on them. All these matters are being covered in the discussions which are taking place at this very moment. I do not think that I should be serving a very useful purpose if I plunged into the matter at this stage.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, without disclosing the details of the present discussions, how far the strategic restrictions exercised by Her Majesty's Government apply to exports to Spain?

Not without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what he has done during the last six months to encourage new industry to establish itself in the Highland Development Area.

My Department continues to take every available opportunity to interest suitable firms in the Highland Development Area. Although there have been no applications for Industrial Development Certificates in the last six months, I am following up two new inquiries which have been made in the period, as well as a number of earlier inquiries.

:While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, will he give an assurance that he and his officials will take every opportunity of drawing to the attention of industrialists the advantages which they can gain by establishing firms in the Development Area, and also to the several distinct advantages which they can gain as a result of the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Town and Country Planning Act relating to the establishment of suitable factories throughout the Highlands?

I will certainly do what I can along those lines. I intend to visit the Highland Development Area in August to study the position and to see some of the industries with which I am concerned.

In view of the importance of this matter to the undeveloped half of Scotland, will it be possible for my right hon. Friend to change the attitude of his Department so that, instead of waiting for people to come to them, they will go out and get hold of people?

While the Board of Trade can do a certain amount, a great deal must depend upon the initiative of the people who are in those parts of Scotland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that during his visit in August he will go to the developing mining areas in Fife and see what can be done about the provision of light industry there?

I should not like to plan my tour on the basis of question and answer at this moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now give particulars of the British manufactures, to the value of £3 million, to be imported by Argentina this year as provided in the supplementary trade agreement.

A statement on the classes of United Kingdom consumer goods on which agreement was reached with the Argentine Government on 22nd April was published in the Board of Trade Journal on 2nd May. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the goods which they have agreed to take. The values of the individual quotas were conveyed to the exporting interests concerned as soon as they became known.

May we take it that the Argentine is now showing a greater willingness to stand by its bargain to take £3 million worth of non-essential imports, including textiles?

The £3 million worth does not include what I should regard as anything like an adequate quantity of textiles.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade offer from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to exchange Soviet matches for British textiles.

No such offer has been made by the Soviet Government, but my Department are in touch with the Soviet trade delegation in London about a proposal of this kind on which the Department have been approached.

Can the Minister indicate the nature of the proposal? Were not quantities of these goods imported before the war, and is not the Soviet Union prepared to sell them to us now and to spend the money on British textiles, and have they not been offered at a price below that of the products of the British Match Corporation? In view of the Minister's policy of fostering competition against the British Match Corporation, will he consider this suggestion swiftly?

The approach was made by a private trading organisation in this country, and I do not think that I should disclose the details of it at this stage while we are still in negotiation with the Soviet trade delegation; but we are following it up to see what can be done.

Since the proposed arrangement will involve an expansion of the market for British textiles, and since it will also give us a very good opportunity of breaking down the monopoly of the British Match Corporation, will the right hon. Gentleman dispel some of the rumours to the effect that the Board of Trade have been very negative in their attitude towards the proposed arrangements?

The Board of Trade have not been at all negative about this or any other matter. We had an inquiry in the ordinary course, and we are discussing certain aspects of it with the Soviet trade delegation at the moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps are to be taken, as a result of conversations held recently with Prime Ministers of nations of the British Commonwealth, to develop bi-lateral trade between the United Kingdom and Australia.

I do not think I can do better than refer the hon. Member to what was said about trade restrictions in the communiqué issued after the Prime Ministers' meeting, which was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 10th June.

As Australia is rich in certain raw materials, of which wool is an example, and as we wish to increase the volume of our exports of manufactured goods such as woollen cloth, is not this a matter which the Government should keep constantly in mind? Could we have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the Government will do all they can to encourage the development of trade between the two countries?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all we can to encourage trade in the sterling area. Of course, trade is not conducted with Australia on a bi-lateral basis, and I certainly hope it never will be.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication to the House of the progress, if any, that has been made in the freeing of the frustrated textile exports to Australia, dating back to the depression of last year?

The hon. Member will appreciate that some easement was made by Australia in the import quota position, but beyond that I do not think I can say more except refer the hon. Gentleman to the communiqué which was issued after the last Prime Minister's Conference.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recent relative decline in exports and increase in imports; and what steps he is taking to preserve a suitable balance in these matters.

The Government have steadily pursued policies to make the economy more flexible, to rid it of inflation, and so increase the ability of British industries to compete in overseas markets, as well as taking every appropriate opportunity to help our exporters directly in their efforts to increase exports. These policies, combined with a favourable movement in the terms of trade, have gone far towards achieving the balance which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The United Kingdom's deficit on visible trade has declined from a monthly rate of £102·7 million in the first nine months of 1951, just before we took office, to £63 million in 1952, and to £60·9 million in the first five months of this year.

Apart from the right hon. Gentleman's generalisation, is it not the case that the current disparity between exports and imports is now running at the unfavourable rate of over £700 million per annum, and is not that self-indulgent rate likely to lead to national bankruptcy?

My answer was far from a generalisation. I gave the hon. Member a specific and marked improvement in the balance of visible trade which has taken place since we took office.

But the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the figure I mentioned. Is it not the case that the unfavourable balance between exports and imports was over £80 million?

The position is that the present rate is £609 million compared with a rate of £1027 million when the previous Government were in office.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the items mainly responsible for increasing our monthly imports to £295,700,000 in May, 1953, as against a monthly average of £263,300,000 in the second half of last year; and what was the dollar cost involved for these additional imports.

The main commodities responsible for this increase, which was, of course, largely seasonal, were: wool, fresh fruit and vegetables, sugar, butter, raw cocoa and meat. The c.i.f. value of imports from the dollar area in May was £690,000 more than the monthly average for the second half of 1952. Imports in May this year were, however, £24·6 million less than in May last year, a reduction of some 8 per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the volume of imports in April and May were about 10 per cent. up on the first three months of this year; what was the reason for this rise; and if he will publish in HANSARD the headings of these additional imports together with the dollar costs involved.

Since the answer is lengthy, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether generally these increased imports are for necessitous goods and not, as has been reported rather widely in the Press, for luxury goods such as tobacco and non-essentials?

I have just given an answer on the types of goods involved. I would add that the value of imports in April and May this year was some 9½ per cent. less than April and May of last year.

Would the right hon. Gentleman refer to the figure which his Department was good enough to give me this morning? Is it not the case that between January and May, 1953, inclusive, the imports were £1,400 million and exports were at the rate of £1,051 million? Is that not a very striking gap between exports and imports to our national detriment?

The position on the balance of visible trade account has shown a very marked improvement on what it was under the previous Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to pay off post-war credits that have been bequeathed to charitable institutions and hospitals.

I am aware of this particular problem, but I regret I cannot say when it will be possible to authorise payment of post-war credit in these cases.

Would it not be reasonable to place charitable institutions and hospitals—I have particularly in mind the Roehampton Hospital—on the same basis as ordinary individuals?

As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, there are a number of proposals as to the best method by which the payments of post-war credits could be accelerated when sufficient funds are available for that purpose, and this particular proposal will, of course, be considered by my right hon. Friend along with others.

What advice does one give to a constituent who has lost his certificate of post-war credits?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, if he has a particular case in mind—procedure differs in different cases—would write to me with particulars and I will endeavour to furnish him with the necessary answer.

As a charitable institution is neither a man nor a woman and cannot reach the age of 60 or 65 years, will they ever be paid off?

My earlier answer indicated that claims would be considered with others, but I agree with my hon. Friend that they are neither man nor woman.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a person approaching the age for repayment of his post-war credits is entitled to apply in advance for repayment on the date when he will attain that age, or only when he attains it.

A person applying for payment of post-war credits is required by law to satisfy the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he had attained the qualifying age at the time of his application. But if he sent in the claim a short time beforehand, the Commissioners would have it examined so that payment might be made promptly when he reached the qualifying age and could formally claim payment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some inspectors refuse even to entertain a claim until the 65th birthday has been reached, and would it not be a nice thing if a person entitled to repayment could be sent a cheque as a present for his 65th birthday? Will my hon. Friend inform all inspectors of his reply?

I think due publicity will be given to this Question and answer, and my hon. Friend himself has been good enough to draw my attention to a case in which a cheque arrived on the 65th birthday.

In view of the answer just given by the Parliamentary Secretary, will he alter the instructions on the application form which say that nobody can make application for their post-war credits before they reach the age of 65?

That accurately states the legal position but, as I have said, as a matter of convenience it is often the case that all the forms can be cleared before that. I will certainly look at the form to see if it does not convey accurately what it should convey.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the percentage of the revenue devoted to social services in 1939 and the percentage so devoted in 1952;

It is estimated that social service expenditure by all public authorities in Great Britain, on current and capital account, amounted to 12 per cent. of the gross national product in 1938–39 and about 17 per cent. in 1952–53. Exchequer expenditure on social services was about 27 per cent. of total ordinary revenue in each of these years. Grants made to local authorities for specific social services, and the net amount of grants to insurance funds, are included in the latter percentage. The food subsidies are not taken into account in these percentages except to the extent that they relate to welfare foods.

Will my hon. Friend carefully read the leading article in "The Times" this morning entitled "The cost of security"?

I always read the leading article in "The Times."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for repayment of Income Tax remained unsettled at 31st May, 1953; how many of these were received more than 14 days previously; and how many more than 28 days previously.

I regret that this information could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of expense and effort and the delay of other work.

Do I understand from the Financial Secretary that particulars which used to be kept of the progress with repayment claims is now being discontinued? If so, is not that a disadvantage in view of the fact that letters have been appearing recently in the columns of the "Financial Times," including both praise and blame? Is it not desirable that the Treasury should be in a position to make known to the public just what speed they are able to achieve in paying the money?

The hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, aware that there is a register in respect of repayment claims received other than through the P.A.Y.E. machinery, which is kept in each inspector's office. The collation and collection of all the statistics would, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows better than anybody else, entail heavy work on the staff of the Inland Revenue.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Civil Service pensioners whose pensions were stabilised in 1935, at a figure below the 1922 level, are still alive and in receipt of a pension; and, having regard to the Pensions Increases Acts passed since then, how many of them are still in receipt of a pension below the 1922 level.

I presume my hon. and learned Friend is referring to civil servants in receipt of pensions calculated on salaries at, or about, the 1935 basis. I am afraid that exact figures are not available, but there are probably about 45,000 Civil Service pensions awarded up to 31st March, 1946, now in issue, and perhaps about 5 per cent. of these would (after allowing for Pensions Increase) still be at rates significantly below 1922 levels. These would, of course, be pensioners drawing the higher rates of pension.

That means there are about 2,000 or 3,000 pensioners affected, and does not that make nonsense of the Minister of Defence's answer the other day in another place when he said that to award higher pensions to retired officers would open the flood gates for claims from the Civil Service? If there are only 2,000 or 3,000 of these people, why does the hon. Gentleman not get on with it?

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend is perfectly well aware that the repercussive effects of the matter to which he referred would not be confined to the special matter of this Question.

That is a legal phrase which means nothing at all. Every time I try to raise this matter to get details I am given evasive answers of that kind. Can the hon. Gentleman not give us some specific information?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has put down a Question and he has had an answer to it. His reference to evasion is wholly inconsistent with the fact that his Question was fully answered, though it might indicate his desire to debate other matters which do not arise on this Question at all.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that he is not really saving any money by adopting this parsimonious attitude, because the number of pensioners on pension who are now having to rely upon National Assistance is rising steadily, so he is having to pay out more money through National Assistance expenditure than he otherwise would have to pay if he adopted a reasonable attitude instead of this cavalier fashion?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had followed the answer which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend, he would have appreciated that the only pensioners affected by the proposal embodied in this Question are those receiving the higher rates of pension, and therefore questions of National Assistance do not in general arise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that none the less there is a very real problem to be solved here?

I agree that this is an important matter. I do not agree that it arises out of this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of increasing the pensions of those civil servants whose pensions were stabilised in 1935 by an amount equivalent to that payable to a retired officer of the Armed Forces if the pension of the latter were restored to the 1920 level.

The basis on which Civil Service pensions are calculated is so different from that applicable to retired officers of the Armed Forces that there would be room for substantial differences of opinion about what would constitute equivalent increases in the two cases. Subject to this, the best estimate which I can give is a figure of the order of £150,000 a year.

Again, is it not trifling with this question to say that the officers' pensions cannot be dealt with because it might involve another claim of £150,000? I ask my hon. Friend to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter needs immediate attention.

As my hon. and learned Friend prefaced his supplementary question with the word "again," I cannot do better than refer him to my reply to his previous one.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what foreign currency facilities were provided for the Automobile Association in connection with their European activities during the last financial year.

It is not the practice to give details of foreign currency facilities provided for individual applicants.

If I send the Economic Secretary some information which has been given me about this case, will he examine it?

I should be glad to do that.

May I ask my hon. Friend, in fairness to the A.A., if he will undertake to publish the result of his inquiries in due course?

No, I have made it clear that it is not the practice and never has been, for good reasons, to comment by Question and answer in this House on individual cases.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the Eighth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, dated 20th May, 1953, he will revise the capital investment programme so as to provide adequate supplies of labour and materials for school building.

No, Sir. The investment programme for education approved for 1953 is already significantly larger, in real terms, than the investment achieved in any year since the war: this is a measure of the importance which the present Government attach to educational building.

But is the Minister aware that he is not right in fact and, more than that, this Report reveals miscalculations and also a terribly shocking complacency towards school building? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend that there must be a readjustment in view of this Report, so that the Ministry of Education can really do their job?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it would be contrary to practice to comment on that Report in advance of the reply to be given by my right hon. Friend. On the investment programme, if any suggestion of complacency arises, I would point out that the investment in school building this year is 8 per cent. higher than last year and 12 per cent. higher than the year 1951–1952.

Do we understand that the Government will take no action arising out of the Report of the Select Committee or, if they are going to do anything, what is it?

I have already made it clear that the first answer to the Report of the Select Committee, in accordance with our normal practice, must come from my right hon. Friend to the Select Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figures of Entertainments Duty recorded in respect of cinema attendances in May, 1952, and May, 1953, respectively, and the percentage fall between the two periods.

About £3 30 million in May, 1952, and £307 million in May, 1953, representing a drop of about 7 per cent.

In view of this serious fall, which the Chancellor admitted on Monday was giving him cause for concern, will the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the answer he gave, that he will not take any action on this question until next year, and in view of the serious problem facing the industry at present, will he consider some new Amendment before the Report stage of the Finance Bill which will deal with the problem disclosed by this answer?

The danger of jumping to conclusions on the basis of one month's figures is illustrated by the fact that the receipts for April, 1953, show a slight increase over those for April of the previous year. With regard to the more general matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I would remind him that this matter was debated fully on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and that after debate the Committee recorded a decision on the matter.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very misleading answer, because figures were given in this House on Monday, and not contested by the Government, which show that for the six months from November last to April there was a fall of 7 per cent., that for the months from January to March there was a fall of 8 per cent. compared with last year, that only in April—which was an abnormally wet month over Easter which is bound to affect these figures— was there an improvement compared with last year? Therefore, this May figure does not represent only this one month but a continuance of a trend of six months?

All those considerations were amply and admirably deployed by the right hon. Gentleman during the debate to which I have referred, but I must remind him that, notwithstanding this, the majority of the Committee decided against it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury when buff official-paid envelopes were last used by Members of Parliament for all constituency correspondence; and what was the cost during the last year that Members exercised this privilege.

In 1839. There is no record of the cost.

Can the Financial Secretary say why this practice was discontinued?

It was discontinued because a Select Committee of this House reported that the concession was abused in numerous cases where no public business was concerned.

Can the Minister say what other section of Government public servants have to pay for State correspondence out of meagre salaries that have not been altered for over seven years?

That raises fascinating issues, but I would suggest that they are not issues raised by this Question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the abuses to which he has referred occurred at a time when there were no Labour Members of Parliament?

That seems to make them all the more remarkable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the annual cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers, respectively, of the supervision and dispossession of farmers and smallholders; and how many persons are employed in these duties.

I cannot give a figure for the annual cost, but I can say that none of it falls on the rates. No one is employed exclusively on this work.

Will the Minister stop this waste of public money, and is he aware that the British public will not tolerate this Gestapo for much longer? May I also ask him to read a letter in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning, written by Mr. Holden Wood, which I think will interest him very much?

That is an entirely different question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now introduce legislation to ensure that farmers and smallholders who are dispossessed should have the right of appeal on points of fact and of merit to a traditional court of law.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 5th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no real difference between the powers of dispossessing farmers which he exercises and those in operation in Russia and other Soviet countries? Will he introduce legislation immediately to give dispossessed farmers a right of appeal to a traditional court of English law on points of fact and of merit?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer I gave him on 5th March.

But my right hon. Friend has not done anything.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of farms in the Sedgefield rural area, the Stockton rural area and the Darlington rural area, are supplied with electricity from the North Eastern Electricity Board; and how this compares with the rest of the north-east farming areas.

I regret that precise details are not available. The three rural districts form part of the Tees sub-area of the North Eastern Electricity Board's area and the number of farms connected to the mains at 31st March last in the sub-area was 909, or approximately 22 per cent. This compares with a general percentage of 26·9 per cent throughout the whole area of the Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite a number of these farms within the areas mentioned are not serviced at the moment with electricity and that one of the reasons why they are not serviced with electricity is because of the high capital cost of tenders which are submitted to them from the electricity board? Is there not something which can be done to ease the position relative to laying on electricity in these farms?

I am very anxious that there should be a speeding up in the supply of electricity to these areas. I do not think I can do better than ask the hon. Member to read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power last Friday.

When looking at this question of electricity for farms, will the right hon. Gentleman consider some sort of assistance being given on the lines of the Hill Farming Act and perhaps make representations to the Minister of Fuel and Power?

That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of farms in the area of the South Wales Electricity Board are supplied with electricity; and how this compares with other areas.

On 31st March, 1953, approximately 174 per cent. of the farms in the area of the South Wales Area Electricity Board were connected to the public electricity supply, compared with a percentage in England and Wales of 41·6 per cent. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the percentages of farm connections in each area board's district, with the exception of London.

Will the Minister agree that this figure is terribly low, not only in comparison with the rest of the country, but as a matter of fact? Will he make the strongest representations to the Minister of Fuel and Power to see if something can be done in the interests of food production in this year?

I do agree that it is exceptionally low, but, in fairness to the South Wales Board, I must inform the House that it is necessary to establish the backbone and ribs of this distribution system first, and they were not established when I took over.

Was it not quite impossible to get these farms to accept electricity in the years before the war, but now here is a queue and capital equipment is not readily available?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to arrest the fall in the making of silage disclosed in the latest figures.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the reduction in the total of silage made in Great Britain; if he will make a statement as to the causes of this; and what plans he has for encouraging an improvement in the position.

I am aware of the slight reduction in the quantity of silage made in 1952 compared with the previous year. This result reflects the more favourable hay making conditions in 1952, and also the difficulties of adopting silage-making on the smaller farms without causing demands for labour and equipment beyond the resources of the holding. I am asking the National Agricultural Advisory Service to give particular attention to the ways and means by which the smaller farms can make good silage with the labour and equipment normally available.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this method of saving our most important crop offers perhaps the most economical and easily available method of saving money on imported feedingstuffs?

Yes, I agree with that. I would inform the House that the actual fall in Great Britain as a whole during last year was a fraction of 1 per cent.

Is the number of our grass drying plants still increasing?

Grass drying, as opposed to silage, is a different question altogether.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that county agricultural executive committees, in deciding whether an agricultural estate is managed efficiently in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Agriculture Act, 1947, discriminate in favour of larger estates and against smallholdings; and if he will appoint a committee under an independent chairman to inquire into this matter, details of which have been sent to him.

No, Sir. The need for an independent inquiry does not. therefore, arise.

Will my right hon. Friend take active and immediate steps to see that small farmers and smallholders are not victimised?

But I do not accept the fact that they are victimised.

My right hon. Friend never does.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if the epidemic of swine fever has now been checked; and when he expects to be able to relax the movement restrictions on pigs.

Yes, Sir; the epidemic does appear to be subsiding, but it is too early as yet to remove the restrictions imposed by the Order made last April. If the favourable downward trend continues I hope to be able to consider doing so in about six or eight weeks.

Does my right hon. Friend feel he has the problem in hand and we are not likely to get any further extensions of the outbreak?

It would never be safe to make any forecast about a disease of this nature, but the figures do show me that the steps we have taken have been effective and, if they continue as they are now, it will be possible to relieve these areas in about six or eight weeks' time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to ensure that all keepers of poultry are informed of the locations of outbreaks of fowl pest.

Particulars of every outbreak are sent to the principal poultry journals, to the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union, to the Accredited Poultry Breeders' Federation, the Animal Health Trust and to the British Veterinary Association. In addition, each outbreak is notified by telegram to the county branch of the National Farmers' Union, the area egg officer of the Ministry of Food and all the egg packing stations concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many new smallholdings have been provided in Great Britain in each of the years since 1945; how this compares with the prewar figures; and if he is satisfied with the rate of increase.

Figures are not available to show the number of new smallholdings provided between 1945 and 1st October, 1949, when Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947, came into operation. During the period 1st October, 1949, to 31st March, 1951, and during the past two financial years I approved schemes for the creation of 91, 80 and 42 new smallholdings, respectively, in England and Wales. Although fewer new holdings are being provided each year than before the war, they are much larger and better equipped, and under prevailing conditions the progress made is as good as can be expected.

Is the Minister aware that in some counties at least the provision of new smallholdings has been virtually at a standstill for many years? Will he do what he can to stimulate counties which are not doing so much as perhaps they could?

Yes, Sir; the first thing is to get the existing smallholdings brought up-to-date and improve standards. I am concentrating on that as a first move. I would tell the House that it costs now approximately £7,500 to provide and equip a smallholding.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties of this problem is that areas most suited to smallholdings are those where land values are most prohibitive to the Ministry assisting the county council in purchasing land? Will he do something to ease that situation?

Yes, Sir. I have this problem always with me, but it is surrounded by a tremendous number of difficulties, such as the one raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.