asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the increase in industrial wages since the amount which pensioners could earn weekly without a reduction in their pension was fixed at £2, he will now increase this figure.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now consider revising the present earnings rule of old-age pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the present position of two vacancies for jobs in industry to every workless person, also approximately 55,000 unfilled vacancies for jobs in the Midlands atoll:, including Kidderminster, Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, and other industrial towns, and to encourage old-age pensioners up to 70 years of age to remain at work, if they wish, whether he will increase from 40s. to 80s. per week the limit of earnings before the retirement pension is mulcted.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will review the earnings limitation imposed upon old-age pensioners in the light of successive increases in retirement pensions in recent years, and of the present high level of employment and the number of vacant jobs now available; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 20th June.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in view of the increase of wages, earnings of £2 a week are no longer a fair figure on which to estimate whether a person should or should not receive a pension?

My hon. Friend no doubt is aware that the Phillips Committee went into this matter and recommended no change in the earnings rule. So far as widows are concerned, the question of widows' benefits is now with the National Insurance Advisory Committee and, when we receive its report, it may throw some light on this matter. In any case, it is something that we shall have to deal with in the course of the non-statutory review of the scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer given to the House today is totally unrealistic? Is it not a fact that throughout the country today there are two vacancies for every job for every workless person, and that tens of thousands of old-age pensioners would remain at work were they given reasonable incentives to do so?

I am not saying that there may not be a case for some change in the rule, but I would say to my hon. Friend that to adopt his proposal and make the earnings limit 80s. instead of 40s. would make it a very paying proposition for almost every woman worker in the areas mentioned in his Question to give up full-time employment when she was over 60 and supplement her pension by part-time earnings.

Will my right hon. Friend, in future consideration of this subject, note that very strong opinion is held about it by all, both in this House and outside, and will he agree that the same circumstances which led to an increase in the permitted earnings in 1951 would appear to call for an increase today?

I have already said that there may be some case for a change in the rule, but we have to take note of the opinion of well-informed bodies, such as the Trades Union Congress, in this matter.

Cannot the Minister at least in fairness raise the amount so that it has the purchasing value which £2 had when that amount was first fixed?

The amount originally fixed by the 1946 Act was 20s., and that was in fact doubled in 1951.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinion of the Phillips Committee, but did that Committee, in adhering to the rule, necessarily adhere to the figure of £2 for all time?

Yes, I think the Committee made a clear recommendation that the present rule should remain unaltered.

With a minority report.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners, at the latest convenient date, suffered deductions from their retirement pensions on account of the earnings rule imposing a maximum earning of 40s. per week before the pension becomes subject to reduction; how many retirement pensions were being paid on the date referred to; and what percentage those suffering pension deductions under the earnings rule were of the total number of pensioners.

Out of the 4,500,000 retirement pensioners, some 50,000—that is, about 1 per cent.—have their pensions reduced on account of the earnings rule.

Is it not a fact that the whole of those 50,000 would be available for consideration against the 400,000 vacancies that there are for jobs today, notably in the Midlands area? Would my right hon. Friend not care to relate these two sets of figures, which should be related to one another, and not endeavour to hark back to 1951 when an entirely different set of circumstances existed in this country?

Although it is only a small percentage of the total number of pensioners, let us face it that it is those pensioners who are between 65 and 70 if they are men, or 60 and 65 if they are women, who are subject to the earnings rule. But I must point out again that any large relaxation of the rule would make it much more remunerative for women to give up full-time employment and take part-time employment instead.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what additional charge would be incurred by public funds, and which funds, by raising the limit of earnings for old-age pensioners from 40s. per week to 80s. per week before reducing pension.

I regret that information is not available on which to assess the additional charge which would fall on the National Insurance Fund.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to secure the assessment of this figure, which is vital in this controversy? Is he not aware that if old people can be induced to remain in full-time employment, it must lead to an increase in national wealth which will more than offset any temporary or transient charge which may fall on the National Insurance Fund?

But what I cannot get my hon. Friend to observe is that his proposal would lead to a great transfer of people at present in full-time employment to part-time employment plus pension.

Is the Minister not ashamed to have to stand at the Box and give so many negative replies on such a human subject?

Not in the least. I know, for one thing, that the views which I have expressed about being careful in what we do in the relaxation of the earnings rule are shared very generally by the whole of the trade union movement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consultations he has had with the nationalised industries, private employers, and trade unions, about the earnings limitation imposed on old-age pensioners; how many representations he has received on this subject in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. But these bodies had opportunities of putting their views before the Phillips Committee. I regret that information about the number of representations is not available. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 20th June.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread feeling that he is moving too slowly in this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not moving at all.") While it is true that the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may be objectionable—

There is nothing objectionable about the figure.

—is it not a fact that the amount should be increased, and increased soon?

As I have said, this matter is tied up to a considerable extent with the Report on widows' benefits which we shall receive shortly.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the value of the earnings permitted to old-age pensioners without diminution of their pensions, in terms of actual values in 1951 and today, respectively; and the figure now required to make the actual value of these earnings equal to the value of permitted earnings in 1951.

The earnings limit was increased from 20s. to 40s. in July, 1951, which, on the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, would today be equivalent to 23s. 9d. and 47s. 6d., respectively.

In view of the whole series of unsatisfactory answers on this problem, I beg to give notice—and hope my hon. Friends will join me—that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that since the last review in pension rates the cost of living has risen, particularly with regard to food prices, rents and rates; that rents, rates and cost of living are again rising making it difficult for all in receipt of pensions to purchase the basic necessities of life; and whether he will take steps to increase all pensions with an immediate increase to old-age pensioners to assist them to overcome the difficulties of the forthcoming winter in addition to off-setting the rise in the cost of living that has taken place since the last review of their pension rates.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what estimate he has made of the increased costs occurring in an old-age pensioner's weekly budget during the past five months; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve hardship due to the continued increase in the cost of living.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the need for urgency in making a decision in respect of the case put to him on 8th November by a deputation from the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations for an increase in the pension rates, if he will make a statement.

Retail prices, as measured by the Interim Index, have risen by about 2 per cent. since last April. Otherwise I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave in reply to similar Questions on 7th November.

Is the Minister aware that the costs of food, rent and rates have now reached the highest level at any period in peace or war; that the purchasing power of the £ is now less than at any previous time in the history of this country; that rent, rates and food are continually going up, and that the Budget will put them up even more? Surely he will do something to help the old-age pensioners to overcome the rigours of winter, and not let them suffer for so long.

This question dealt with the rates of National Insurance pensions based upon the contributory system of National Insurance. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the increases made in insurance pensions as recently as last April have given these pensions a higher value than they ever had before these new rates came into operation. So far as the relief of distress and hardship is concerned, that is another matter, because that is the function of the National Assistance Board.

Does the Minister say that he has turned down the application made to him last week by the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners' Associations, and is he not aware, whatever the case he is prepared to make out now, that if something is not done quickly for the poorer old-age pensioners they will have a dreadful winter, and that this will be a national scandal? Can he hold out some hope for them before it is too late?

I have just pointed out that any pensioner who has no other resources but a National Insurance pension and who finds his resources inadequate can and should make application to the National Assistance Board.

Does the Minister really think that 15s. 8d. a week is sufficient for an old-age pensioner? Does he realise that the figures given the other day show that £1 is now worth only 7s. 10d., and, therefore, the £2 which the old-age pensioner is getting has a purchasing power of only 15s. 8d.? Does he think that is sufficient?

I would point out to the hon. Lady that the National Insurance pension carries a higher value today than it did at any time during the whole six years that the Socialist Government sat on these benches.

Is the Minister aware that, although the figure is higher than it may have been before, it is still lamentably low compared with what it has to purchase, and that even if old-age people go to the National Assistance Board and get the maximum which the Board can give them, it is still not enough to keep them decently and in comfort?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what recent proposals he has received from the National Assistance Board for the alleviation of distress amongst its beneficiaries arising from the high cost of living.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) on 31st October. The Board can be relied on to submit proposals whenever it thinks the situation warrants it, and I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of the Question.

Is the Minister aware that there is nothing whatever in the statute constituting the Board, nor in the practice of his predecessors in this office which he now holds which would prevent him, if he so desires, making representations to the Board on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman should read Section 6 of the 1948 Act, where he will see that the initiative in this matter rests entirely with the National Assistance Board.

Is it not a fact that the National Assistance Board has no really reliable information at all about the cost of living of old people? Did the Phillips Committee not report that there has been no adequate system of analysis of income and expenditure of elderly households in Great Britain? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of that, and is he going to do something about it?

Of course, I accept that that is in the Phillips Report if the right hon. Gentleman tells me so, but he must remember that the Phillips Committee made its report at the end of November last year. I have since then referred one of my hon. Friends to the Report of the National Assistance Board for 1954, which came out in July this year, and which contains a most interesting analysis of the way in which old persons on assistance are living at the present time.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend, quite rightly, has persistently referred to the Phillips Committee Report, would it not be a good idea, as he is a member of the Cabinet, if he were to suggest to the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on the Phillips Committee Report without further delay? It is ridiculous that we should not debate this very important Report.

Surely my hon. Friend knows that it is not for me to arrange the business of the House.

My right hon. Friend is in the Cabinet.

I am sure the hon. Lady can press her points at the appropriate time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the present position with regard to the Japanese assets arising under Article 14 of the Japanese Peace Treaty; the total amount of the sums paid out and the amount still in hand; when he expects to make another per capita distribution; and what sum he proposes to transfer to the Far-Eastern Prisoners of War Central Welfare Fund for the welfare of those Far-Eastern prisoners who may be suffering privation and hardship.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Am I right in saying that the total sum paid out is rather more than double what it was originally anticipated would be available, and can my right hon. Friend say whether he is able from the residue, if there is any, to make a worth-while sum available for the Central Welfare Fund?

I shall be pleased to give my hon. and gallant Friend the two figures for which he asked. The total sum paid out is £2,615,000, which, as he says, is far in excess of what we anticipated when the scheme was launched, and we shall be able to transfer £10,000 to the Far-Eastern Prisoners of War Central Welfare Fund.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that the price of coal has risen considerably since the increase in old-age pensions was awarded; and if he is prepared to consider favourably a request from the National Assistance Board that additional allowances should be made in respect of fuel for the coming winter.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will help the old-age pensioners drawing National Assistance allowances this winter by providing them with an allowance of coal at concessionary prices.

The Board's view for many years has been that provision must be made for fuel in the normal weekly allowance, and this is done. As to these allowances, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) on 31st October.

Is the Minister aware that the House and the country are weary of his callous and miserable replies on this subject? How does he propose that the old people should get through this winter? How does he think they will be able to purchase coal if he is not at present prepared to consider an additional request to the National Assistance Board? Does he not realise that the Board has not the power—I asked it recently—to give old-age pensioners an increased amount for coal because of the rise in its price?

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to import prejudicial adjectives into a supplementary question?

It is not strictly in order to be argumentative in supplementary questions. A supplementary question should ask for information, not express opinions.

As the hon. Lady is aware, the National Assistance Act, 1948, placed the initiative in the matter of National Assistance scales fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the National Assistance Board, which has invariably discharged its obligations to the very general satisfaction of the House and the country.

Is the Minister not aware that a million of the poorest old people have received only 2s. 6d. a week to meet the rise in the cost of living of the last two years; that, after food, their biggest expenditure is on coal, which now costs nearly £8 in the South of England? Will he not take the initiative to persuade the National Assistance Board to do something for those old folk in this way this winter?

The hon. Member knows that the scales of Assistance were increased as recently as February last. He also knows, I should think, that the estimated cost of the rise in the price of coal will work out at about 7½d. retail per cwt.

Are not these matters for the National Assistance Board? In quoting such figures, is not the Minister prejudicing consideration by the Board? Is it not well known that the cost of coal forms a much larger proportion of the cost of living of people like these than is the case with people such as ourselves? Should not the Board be considering this now without direction, direct or indirect, from the Minister?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I made no direction to the Board of any kind—it is not my job. I entirely share his view that it is the responsibility of the National Assistance Board, which we can trust it to discharge properly.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will now give some additional help in the matter of coal to old-age pensioners living alone.

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that National Assistance is already available to a pensioner whose resources are insufficient for his needs.

As there is a likelihood of the price of coal going yet higher this winter, and as warmth is a necessity for old folk, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements that are as generous as possible?

Yes, but in regard to this question of pensioners living alone—in which he has a special interest—I should like to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the National Assistance Board, which was published in July of this year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of these poor people living alone buy their coal in small quantities, and the question is how the increase per cwt. affects those who buy in quantities of much less than a cwt.? I hope that he will ask the Assistance Board to keep that in mind. It is not fair to judge this merely in terms of people who can buy tons and cwts.

I am sure that the National Assistance Board will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Is the Minister aware that I can send him particulars of an old-age pensioner living alone and receiving the full supplementary allowances to which she is entitled under the scale, yet for three days a week she has to live on cups of tea, bread and margarine and cheese? Does he think that that state of affairs should be tolerated in this country?

I hope that the hon. Member will do as he said he would and send me particulars of that case. I shall certainly see that the person whom he has in mind is visited by an official of the Board immediately.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many special discretionary allowances are in payment to old persons to assist them to meet the cost of coal.

The National Assistance Board informs me that information about the numbers of discretionary additions to the assistance allowances of old persons and others who have to incur additional expense on heating because of special circumstances is obtained annually on the basis of a sample examination of cases, but that up-to-date figures are not yet available.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman follow this matter up by inviting the Assistance Board to make a further immediate inquiry, in view of the well-known fact that voluntary bodies, which do a great deal to help old people in establishing clubs and the like, all insist that this question of fuel costs is a matter of very serious concern to every old person in the country this coming winter?

The National Assistance Board, in accordance with its usual practice, is at present engaged upon the inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman asks, and no doubt the figures will be available very shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the National Assistance Board has a sufficiently wide discretion in these matters? Will he look into this?

Oh yes, the Board has exceedingly wide discretion and is making use of it. This time last year it was giving these discretionary additions in no fewer than 620,000 cases—more than one in three of all the cases which the Board handled.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the important physiological fact that, whilst old people can do with less food than strong healthy adults, they do need more heat if they are to be kept alive?

Yes, I will take note of that point.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration he has given to the possibility of increasing the amount widows are allowed to earn without a reduction of pension; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will again consider the need of increasing the amount that may be earned by widows without losing their right to draw a full pension, particularly in view of existing hardship borne by many widows through increased living costs.

I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 31st October.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some concession ought to be made to widows, many of whom have become the breadwinners of their families and have to take responsibility for the enormous cost of clothing and feeding children?

The whole question of widows' benefits is now with the National Insurance Advisory Committee. It is, in fact, preparing its Report to me on this matter.

Has the Minister himself made no inquiries as to the incidence of hardship on many of these widows, particularly in view of the increased cost of living?

As I have said, and repeat, this matter is with the National Insurance Advisory Committee. So long as it is with that Committee, it would not be proper for me to take independent action.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows in the borough of Leyton are drawing pensions; and how many of these receive less than the full amount because of other income.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the Minister not aware that the figures exist? Can he not assist hon. Members to obtain these figures by making inquiries in the proper quarter?

No, Sir. I am afraid that our figures of widow pensioners are not kept upon this sort of local basis. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that non-contributory old-age pensions as well as National Insurance pensions are affected by the question of earnings and incomes.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider amending the National Insurance Act so as not to prevent mental patients, whose detention has arisen out of criminal proceedings, from benefiting under the National Insurance Scheme.

I have had the National Insurance position of these mental patients under consideration, but it would not be possible for the National Insurance Advisory Committee to undertake the review of these provisions at this moment.

Does the Minister really not know how stupid this anomaly is and that it is causing bitterness among the dependants of these unfortunate people?

The hon. Member has raised a point of some substance. I am told that in these cases the Board of Control is arranging for the payment of pocket money on a scale similar to that available under the Scheme to the persons detained in these institutions. At the same time, this is a matter which the National Insurance Advisory Committee ought to examine some time soon.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many war widows known to his Department are not receiving the full amount of the war widows' pension owing to their having been separated from their husbands at the time of their husbands' deaths; and what would be the cost to the Exchequer in a full year if they were awarded the full pension.

About 970 war widows who were separated from their husbands are receiving pensions at less than the full rates. These pensions are equivalent to the amount of support which the widow received before her husband's death. To bring these pensions up to the normal rates would cost about £85,000 a year.

In view of the very small sum involved, would not my right hon. Friend reconsider this rather peculiar position and bring these pensioners into line with other war widows?

This rule has been in existence for a very long time and has been administered by Ministers of Pensions of all parties. On the face of it, it seems reasonable to limit the amount given to the widow to the amount she was receiving from her husband whilst he was alive.

Is it not possible—and, indeed, likely—that if the husband had lived the woman would have asked for an increase in the order made by the justices, as his earnings would probably have increased with the general increase of wages?

That is a point to be borne in mind. But there is also the converse case, that the man might have fallen down on his payments had he remained alive.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether negotiations have now been resumed with the Government of New Zealand for a reciprocal agreement upon the payment of pensions; and when Parliament is likely to have a statement upon the matter.

Yes, Sir. A draft agreement is under discussion, and Parliament will be informed as soon as the negotiations are concluded.

Is the Minister aware that a number of widows who have returned to this country from New Zealand, and possibly from other Dominions, have lost their pensions because they have taken up permanent residence in England, and that the New Zealand Government, in particular, say that the pensions will be paid when agreement is arrived at with Her Majesty's Government? Will the Minister regard this matter as one of urgency and see if he can expedite some satisfactory arrangement?

Yes, delegates from New Zealand are in this country at the present time and I hope to be able to report the conclusion of the agreement very shortly.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is now in a position to state when the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widows' Pensions is likely to be published; and if he will give an undertaking to implement the recommendations of the Report without delay.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will invite his National Advisory Committee to speed up their Report on the position of widows.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee regarding the position of the widow receiving a pension of 10s.

I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 31st October. I certainly cannot undertake to implement a Report which I have not yet received.

Why has not my right hon. Friend answered my Question, which asks him if he will kindly convey to his National Advisory Committee the feeling of this House that the Report is being too long delayed? Why did he not answer that Question?

I thought I had answered it, by implication, at any rate.

Oh, no.

I have already said that the Committee is engaged on preparing its Report, and I am sure that it will be a very good Report when we get it.

Is the Minister aware that there are two sorts of widows, that in one section there is the widow who gets 10s. a week, and in another section the widow who gets 20s. per week, and that those sections have not had an increase for ten years? Will not the Minister, knowing the long time that these people have been waiting, use his influence to hasten the findings of the Committee? I cannot understand how a Committee can take so long over such a matter.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee is comprised of amateurs—ordinary men and women with other jobs to do. When they reviewed maternity benefits they produced a most excellent Report which was a great improvement on the scheme in force up to then, and I am sure that, as far as widows are concerned, something of the same sort will occur.

Since the Committee has informed the Minister that the Report is now in preparation, can he tell us whether the Committee has given him an estimated date when he may receive the Report?

No, I am afraid I cannot give the date.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I got into trouble with some of the 10s. widows in Belfast for not bringing them along to see him on the occasion of his recent visit? They thought he looked so kind and handsome in his photographs in the Press. They thought that if I had taken them to see him they could have "blarneyed" him into doing something for them. Is my right hon. Friend aware that they are now more difficult than ever, because they consider that, with the increased tax on household articles, they are entitled to an increase in pension more than they ever were before?

I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend in his difficulties with those widows, and I hope that when the Report appears the difficulties will be fully resolved.

Has my right hon. Friend pointed out, not only to the Committee but also to the printers, that there is no subject upon which the House is more deeply concerned at present than that of National Insurance and widows' pensions? Will everything possible be done to speed up the Report so that we can consider it here?

It is because I attach great importance to these matters that I announced in March of last year that this question was to be referred to the Advisory Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what action he proposes to take in response to the claim submitted on Tuesday 8th November by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to Questions by the hon. Members for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) and Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) on 31st October.

In view of the fact that the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, other high medical opinion and the whole of the House of Commons support this scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend when he thinks democracy is going to work and the will of the people is going to prevail?

This claim has been repeatedly examined by successive Ministers of Pensions over a very long period, and they have all come to the conclusion that it is not possible to pick out and treat specially the aged limbless persons and to distinguish those cases from other equally deserving cases of persons suffering equal disability but who have not lost a limb.

Is the Minister aware that there is very strong feeling on this matter on both sides of the House and that in Room 14 last week a very large meeting was held for people to express their opinions? Is he aware that the average age of these men is 64 and that they are dying at the rate of a thousand a year? Something must be done quickly or it will be too late.

Of course, we have recently increased the basic pension by a very substantial figure nad we have also increased the retirement pensions for the aged. Those men have benefited from the increases in both classes of pension. What no Minister of Pensions has felt himself able to do has been to pick out limbless persons as such for some special benefit. I know that if it were done it would be bitterly resented by other classes of pensioners, such as the paralysed, who would think that they were being unfairly treated.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says about picking out the case of limbless persons, has he considered modifying the comforts allowance to include in it some element of compensation for age and the effect of war injuries upon it?

I will certainly look at that suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman of course knows that these limbless persons attract clothing allowance in rather special numbers.

That is a very mean reply.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total amount of new capital introduced into the coal mining industry in Great Britain since 1952.

Capital expenditure has been about £253 million, of which £179 million has been financed by new borrowing.

Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of the country getting any return on this enormous investment of capital in the shape of more coal?

That is a different question, but I would remind my hon. Friend that coal is an extractive industry and that, in the absence of new investment, capacity for the production of about 5 million tons of coal a year would be lost. That has to be made up before there is a gain.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he will be in a position to make a statement on his discussions with the National Coal Board about the recommendations of the Turner Committee on Mining Subsidence.

I can add little to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in reply to the hon. Member on 1st November. A comprehensive review is under way, and I can assure the hon. Member that no time will be lost.

We have had that answer for four years now; has the Minister no sense of shame in this matter at all? Is he not aware that we had almost exactly the same answer in 1951 when he first took over and that the victims of mining subsidence have the impression that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to a policy of unlimited procrastination? Is it due to his own lack of interest, or is the Chancellor responsible for the fact that no progress has been made in four years?

No, Sir. I do not wish to be unduly modest. Compared with the record of the last Government, I could feel positively proud of our record.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average working life of pit ponies; and how many ponies working in pits in England, Scotland and Wales, are over 11 years old.

I regret that the information is not available, but the National Coal Board estimate that the working life of a pony is from 10 to 15 years.

Could my right hon. Friend say how many invitations have been issued by the National Coal Board to responsible persons to adopt aged ponies which have served their time underground?

No, not without notice.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been brought to the proposals made by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council in paragraph 33 of their latest report; and what action he proposes to take to implement such proposals.

Yes, Sir; and I have explained to the Council why I cannot accept its proposals.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these are very good proposals and that the Consumers' Council advocates that the Coal Board should be relieved of the responsibility for the interest on compensation paid to former mine owners and responsibility for importing coal? Does not the Minister agree that those two items form a considerable amount in the balance sheet of the National Coal Board and, if they were removed, the Board could well pay its way and give the miners the charter they want?

I consider that, when we look at the problem of coal prices squarely, those are false issues and that we must face the fact that between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the cost of coal is wages.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the opinion expressed in the latest report of the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, he will state the Governmental policy on coal exports.

As I announced on 20th July, the Government have decided that a substantial reduction in the level of coal exports is unavoidable. Because of existing commitments, this year's exports will only be about 2 million tons less than in 1954, but next year there will be a further cut of about 5 million tons.

In view of the apparent impossibility of maintaining or increasing exports, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ridiculous to export coal and then, as a result of exporting, import coal at a loss which the Coal Board has to pay and which it uses as an argument against the miners whenever they demand improved conditions?

The hon. Member must be aware that there was a strong feeling in the coal industry for many years that it was wise to maintain our exports in order to keep a footing in our traditional markets because it might well be possible that we could take advantage of it later on. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that production is not capable of coping with home demand, that view has had to be abandoned, at any rate for the present.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm recent Press reports that the Coal Board has been exporting coal to Eire at a loss?

We do have to export coal to Eire under an agreement made with that country, but I am not aware that it is done at a loss.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of imported coal will not be accepted as an argument against any increase in miners' wages?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how coal stocks in Scotland today compare with the figures a year ago.

Total distributed stocks at 29th October, 1955, amounted to 1,670,000 tons, compared with 1½ million tons a year before.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these stocks should be sufficient to see us through the winter?

I think the warm spell, both in this country and in Scotland, is liable to lull people into a false sense of security. It would be wise to remember the very bitter weather we sometimes have in this country in the early months of the spring. Therefore, I would not wish to encourage any complacency but would take the opportunity of saying how very important it is that industrial concerns should make the maximum savings of coal which they can by taking precautions in this matter.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in experimental work on the underground gasification of coal.

For over three months gas from underground gasification has been produced experimentally at a site in Worcestershire. 600 kW. of electricity could have been generated from the gas so far produced and production continues. A report on these experiments will be published shortly. I am expecting the results of independent cost estimates within the next three weeks and I shall then decide, in consultation with the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Authority, how best to exploit the success already achieved in this experimental work.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are great prizes open to his Department if he goes ahead with these experiments, as between 500 million and 1,000 million tons of unmineable coal would be available for the power resources of the nation if these experiments proved entirely successful?

Of course, these are early days to be sure that these successful experiments can be exploited economically, but my Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure the House will agree that in the present difficult position in the output of coal and shortage of miners it would be a very great gain if we could get a supply of coal energy without miners having to go underground. As far as we can see at present, although there are very large amounts of coal potentially usable in this way, in the years immediately ahead we can see only a marginal contribution to our energy requirements; but nevertheless it is a very important experiment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the success of these experiments after so many years—I think they began in 1948 or 1949—is very gratifying? Could he say whether he expects that use could be made of the gas so produced in abundance near the sites where the underground gasification takes place, or is he contemplating carrying the gas over a wider field?

The crucial turning point in the experiments came when the ideas of electro linkage underground or of pushing down high pressure gas were abandoned and some simple galleries and directed drilling, as used by the oil industry, to pierce the coal seams were used. We are advised that it would not be economic to take the gas away for use, but that the best method would appear to be to use the gas in gas engines to generate electricity, on or near the site of extraction as the right hon. Member suggested.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether Worcestershire is the only area where such experimental work is going on? Are there not other places suitable?

There was also an experiment at Newman Spinney near Chesterfield.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now able to make a statement on the improvement of pension schemes taken over under the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948, which provide inadequate benefit in relation to present living costs.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put Questions on this matter on two previous occasions this year and on each occasion he said that he hoped to make statements soon? In the meantime, the cost of living continues to rise, causing tremendous hardship to numbers of people suffering because of his procrastination.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member, but I would refer him to the fact that on 27th October the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government are undertaking a review of the position of pensioners benefiting from the Pension Increase Act, 1954. Because of the connection of that subject with the Question that the hon. Member put to me, I must defer any action on my part.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these people, although few in number, are suffering considerable hardship, and that the individuals concerned feel that if the rearrangement had not taken place a good employer would have increased their pensions? Is he aware that they feel they have been unjustly treated?

I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend very much, and I understand that the announcement to which I have referred will be made shortly.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure equality of treatment as between the electricity and gas industries in the cutting back of promotional expenditure requested by the Government.

Both have made substantial reductions, with results that are broadly equitable as between the two industries.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether there has been a percentage cut or an absolute cut, in view of the well-known fact that the gas industry spends a great deal more in this direction than the electrical supply industry?

I think it is about 30 per cent.

When he was resisting the demands of the Treasury on this matter, did the right hon. Gentleman point out that the aircraft industry spends a great deal of money on promotional advertising of military aircraft, which ought to be stopped before that of the gas and electricity industries?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the anticipated kilowatt reduction in electrical generation and bulk transmission development capacity as a result of the capital project deferment requested by the Government.

The detailed review which is being made of capital expenditure has not yet been completed but, as I indicated on 25th October, any revision of the capital programme will have full regard to the need for maintaining essential supplies of power.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great industrial need of this country is increased productivity, that that demands ample supplies of electric power and that this restriction on development is, therefore, the most shortsighted policy imaginable?

No, Sir, I think that if the hon. Member studies the Answer he will see that it is important to make savings on projects which will not affect the supply of electric power.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress in research on the production of electric power from hydrogen-oxygen cells has been made; what support is being given to this form of production of energy by the Government; and whether he will make a statement.

Since 1951 Her Majesty's Government have contributed about £9,000 for this purpose. The Bacon Fuel Cell has already reached an encouraging stage of technical development, and the possibility of its commercial development is now being investigated.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of a further recent increase in the price of petrol, if he will now introduce price control for this commodity.