asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will introduce legislation to amend the Electricity Act, 1947, so as to enable area electricity boards to fix maximum prices for the resale of metered electricity.

My right hon. Friend will certainly consider including this matter in amending legislation at some future date.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what revisions in the first ten-year programme of nuclear power will be brought about by the incorporation in the programme of the six additional atomic reactors announced last June.

None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 13th June last, these reactors do not form part of the civil programme proposed in the White Paper, but are additional to it.

Why are we having conflicting replies on this subject? I was informed by the Minister of Works the other day that these reactors would supply about 200,000 kilowatts of electrical capacity by 1959 or 1960. As it is apparently possible to speed up the atomic energy programme quite substantially at short notice to meet pressure from the military authorities to meet their needs, why cannot a similar intensification be applied on the civilian side?

I think the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. These reactors to which he is referring are exact copies of the Calder Hall Reactor, and therefore they can go ahead with production straight away, whereas the plants referred to in the White Paper are primarily for the production of electricity, which the others are not, and therefore there are questions of design and of siting and all that sort of thing.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government are reviewing the categories of pensions covered by the Pensions (Increase) Acts, he will conduct a similar review of the pensions paid by the boards of nationalised industries under his control in respect of employees who were drawing pensions at the time of take over with a view to amending his regulations.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether, concurrently with the details of further measures to assist retired members of the public services, which are to be placed before Parliament in the New Year, he will lay before Parliament a review of pension schemes taken over under the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948.

The boards are responsible for reviewing pension schemes and suggesting changes, but must seek my right hon. Friend's approval for any proposed amendments. He has received proposals from the Central Electricity Authority for increasing the pensions of their ex-company pensioners and is prepared to approve some supplementation.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend last Monday said that he must await giving me an answer until the Chancellor had given his answer on the question of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, and as that answer was favourable, may I ask now, if the nationalised boards under my hon. Friend's control bring forward schemes for increasing their pensions, they will all have his approval, because otherwise what was the purpose of the answer last week, if there is not to be a good result?

I am sorry if my answer was not quite clear.

It did not cover enough.

I think it covered a great deal. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that everything put to my right hon. Friend will be approved, but the proposals he has already received he is prepared to approve.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of the company pensioners in the electricity supply industry, they will be grateful for this necessary but belated action? Are we to assume from his answer that he has received no proposals from other nationalised industries for which he is responsible, including the gas industry?

Yes, that is so.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, having regard to the recent reduction of £500,000 in the promotional advertising expenditure of the electricity and gas industries, what further inessential expenditure is to be similarly eliminated.

Both industries have made proposals to defer expenditure which is not immediately necessary for maintaining future supplies and providing consumers with a reasonable service. My right hon. Friend is considering these proposals.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that this Question relates to promotional advertising? Why is it necessary for the State electricity authority, which is a monopoly any way, to advertise its wares, since all advertising practice should be based on competitive conditions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. Would not my hon. Friend consider eliminating all promotional advertising expenditure by State electricity?

No, Sir. I do not think that it would be a desirable thing to give direction to that effect, but, as my hon. Friend quite correctly suggests in his Question, there has been a very substantial reduction in the amount of promotional advertising which the industries have put in hand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is always advertising himself without any competition?

Too much waste on the surface.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking, in collaboration with the Central Electricity Authority and the Atomic Energy Authority, to recruit and train the engineering and scientific staff necessary to carry through the 10-year programme of nuclear power development set out in the White Paper presented to Parliament in February last.

The responsibility for recruiting and training the required staff lies with the Central Electricity Authority and the firms participating in the Atomic Energy Groups. In the summer of 1954 the British Electricity Authority was asked for reports on the training of men for this work, and its plans for this purpose were included in the training programme which my right hon. Friend approved this year. He is now awaiting an assessment by the Authority of its requirements of skilled men of all types over the next five years.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave doubts that have been expressed on this point by the Atomic Energy Authority itself, and does he not think that the Government, quite apart from the British Electricity Authority, have a responsibility if this programme is to grow to some kind of reality?

It will be easier to judge that when my right hon. Friend receives the reports to which I have referred.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is satisfied with the working of the summer price concession scheme for coal; and if he will make a statement.

The scheme has proved its value over the last six years in encouraging merchants and consumers to lay down stocks in the summer and thus lessen the difficulties of distribution during the winter. It was less successful this year than previously, chiefly on account of the dislocation of coal supplies by strikes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas merchants collectively agreed not to give the advantage of the summer price concession to people who ordered their coal after 25th May, notwithstanding the fact that the same merchants advertised the advantages of the summer price scheme, and that many of my constituents—perhaps many others as well—feel that they have been treated unfairly? In those circumstances, and in order to safeguard the scheme, will my hon. Friend ensure that this practice does not continue next year?

I am afraid that what my hon. Friend says is true. There was a considerable amount of disappointment with this scheme which was very helpfully put forward by the merchants, but, as I said in my Answer, it was upset by the dislocation of rail traffic. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with the federation to try to ensure that next year it is worked more flexibly and better.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how the figures of coal output so far this year compare with those last year.

Total output in the first 46 weeks has been 2·9 million tons less than in 1954.

Can my hon. Friend give any reasons for that? What are the plans to remedy the position?

The reasons for it are spread over the various headings of there being more strikes, lower O.M.S. overall, poorer attendances, lower manpower and lower Saturday output. Steps to improve the situation are being taken urgently and actively by the National Coal Board at present.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the percentages of responsibility under the various headings he has mentioned?

If the right hon. Gentleman means the actual amounts which fell short under those headings, they were as follows: the amount due to there being more strikes was 1·4 million tons, lower O.M.S. overall accounted for ·9 million tons, poorer attendance ·7 million tons, lower manpower ·7 million tons and lower Saturday output ·2 million tons.

Would it not be a good idea if the National Coal Board spent more time stimulating production rather than on details of administration?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what is wanted is more manpower? An hon. Member opposite suggested that we want more coal and, from this side of the House, we suggest we want more manpower.

Yes, I agree with both suggestions. The National Coal Board is concentrating all the efforts it can on obtaining more manpower and production.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) the estimated present shortage of men in the coal industry;

No reliable estimate can be made of the difference between the annual rate of production and the capacity of the mining industry at any given time. But it is estimated that there are at present vacancies for some 13,500 more men and that if these vacancies were filled the output of coal might increase by some 4 million tons.

Is it not a fact that on 8th September the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said that there was a deficit between what was being produced and what could be produced? I realise that many miners are doing all they can, but does not the Minister think that there should be a better response to the nation's need by this nationalised industry?

I should not like to claim that the actual output of any industry represented its capacity. I certainly would never make that claim for the mining industry and I do not think anybody in it would. I quite agree that it is essential to obtain greater production, particularly from the deep-mined industry, and every endeavour is being made to achieve that object.

Is the Minister aware that the answer he has now given about the prospective increase in output if the Government would do something to increase manpower in the mines puts the matter in a much better perspective than his answer to the previous Question from his hon. and gallant Friend? Does it not show that in fact the shortage of manpower is the main factor responsible for our coal output being below national needs?

I would not say that it is entirely or even principally due to a shortage of manpower, although that does play a substantial part. The Government have already taken many worthwhile steps to increase manpower and to encourage recruitment to the industry.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that it should take steps to prevent the dumping of waste on the surface.

No, Sir.

Why? Is it not important, in the interests of safety, to stow the waste in the pit in what is called the "gob"? Is not that done in many other coal-producing countries, especially Germany? That is quite apart from the unsightly appearance caused by these dumps all over the place. Are we to understand that the Minister is not going to do anything about it?

Circumstances in Germany are very different from those in this country. Provision with regard to the control of these heaps has, by Parliament, been laid upon local planning authorities who can make an order subject to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Will my hon. Friend ask the National Coal Board to prevent the dumping of waste on the consumer? May I have an answer?

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that it has always been considered by miners that, from a practical point of view, it would be much better if the stuff now being raised to the surface were packed or gobbed underground? Is he not aware that if that were done it would minimise the amount of damage caused by mining subsidence in mining areas? Is he further aware that in many places the National Coal Board is creating these unsightly pit heaps when the stuff could be put into what we call washes, near the pits?

I quite agree with the first part of that supplementary question, but that can be achieved only by power stowing. That is on the increase in mines, and is being encouraged wherever possible. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, it is very often a matter of practical and geological impossibility.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many invitations to responsible people, as defined by regulations, to give a home to aged pit ponies which have served their term underground have been extended by the National Coal Board since the regulations were approved in 1950.

The regulations are designed to protect horses which have reached the end of their working life in the pits from falling into the hands of unscrupulous dealers. The detail of arrangements to comply with the regulations is a matter for the National Coal Board, and I am sure it would supply my hon. and gallant Friend with any further information for which he might ask.

Can my hon. Friend explain the apparent reluctance of the National Coal Board to let these aged pit ponies go to responsible people who would see that they have some happy years at the end of their lives?

I know of no such reluctance as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. I am quite sure that if he has any particular case in mind the Chairman of the National Coal Board will be very glad to communicate with him.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make regulations prohibiting the use of pit ponies underground in coal mines for more than 11 years.

No, Sir. Fitness for work, as prescribed by the regulations, provides a better criterion than an arbitrary number of years' service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some ponies have been kept underground far too long, up to 20 or 30 years of age, and will he draw the attention of the National Coal Board to the fact that responsible organisations exist which would give them a good home, instead of their having to be slaughtered, which appears to be the policy of the Board at the present time?

No, I would not say it is the policy of the National Coal Board at the present time. If responsible people are available to give horses which are no longer fit for work a good home, the Board readily accepts any offers it receives.

What happens to those pit ponies when they are past work if a comfortable home is not offered to them?

If they are past work they are humanely slaughtered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last ten years remarkable progress has been made in the saving of ponies from going underground through mechanisation, and that we are delighted to know that that is taking place?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The number of ponies used in the pits is steadily decreasing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people will not be altogether satisfied with his answer that if the National Coal Board receives offers to take the ponies it will send ponies to those making the offers? Should it not be the other way round? Should not the Board make greater efforts to find reasonably good homes for the ponies?

I do not think there is any doubt that the homes which are provided by responsible people are known to the National Coal Board. There is a number of societies which take a very active interest in this matter and are frequently in communication with the Board about it.

Could the hon. Gentleman say what the cost would be if the Board looked after the ponies which have served it so well if it cannot find homes for them?

I am afraid I could not answer that question, but it would be a very substantial sum.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what steps he will take to ensure that the proposed reduction in coal exports amounting to about 3 million tons is experienced equally by all coal-exporting ports and not only by the Welsh ports in the Bristol Channel; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that his restrictions on the export of coal have adversely affected trade at the port of Goole where coaling equipment is lying idle; and what proposals he has for increasing the exports of Yorkshire coal.

The decision to reduce exports must inevitably affect the exporting coalfields and ports. As to the size of that reduction and the distribution of exports among individual ports, I would refer to the replies given on 14th November to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) and on 21st November to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas).

Is my hon. Friend aware that the view is being expressed in South Wales that the South Wales coalfield and the South Wales ports are being asked to bear a disproportionate and unfair proportion of this reduction? Can he say whether his right hon. Friend does not feel that he should be chary of exercising this power, which he did not possess prior to nationalisation? In the days before nationalisation exported Welsh coal was famous the world over.

The power exercised by my right hon. Friend is in regard to the total allocation of coal for export and not in regard to the ports through which it is exported. On the special question which my hon. Friend raised, it does not look as though there is likely to be any discrimination against any port.

Will not the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of Question No. 21, namely, what proposals he has for increasing the exports of Yorkshire coal'? Is he aware that the South Yorkshire coalfield, and Goole, which is the main outlet for Yorkshire coal, are very distressed about the reduction in exports and the decline in trade passing through the port of Goole?

I am afraid that the only solution to the broad question is increasing production. We have to appreciate that for the time being we have become an importing country for coal instead of an exporting one.

In view of the nature of that reply, on a matter which is of such importance to Wales, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will, under the power vested in him by Section 1 of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, amend subsection (2) thereof by substituting a higher figure for the figure mentioned in that subsection.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) on 21st November.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the rateable value of dwellinghouses will be increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the near future?

I have no information upon that subject.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will indicate the precise nature of the comprehensive review of the Turner Committee's recommendations on Mining Subsidence now being undertaken by his Department in conjunction with the National Coal Board.

I have nothing to add at present to the information which has been given to the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no information has been given to me at all and that the Minister has not indicated what is the nature of his review? Are we to understand that this review has been going on for four years since he has been in office? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has claimed that his record on the subject has been better than that of the Labour Government, but that the Labour Government did produce legislation on the subject? When is some legislation going to be forthcoming from the present Minister?

I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but the review, as my right hon. Friend has informed the hon. Gentleman, is a comprehensive one, and it was initiated towards the end of the last Session.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much damage has occurred in Durham County due to mining subsidence since 1948; and what total amount of money has been paid in compensation since 1948 in lieu thereof by the National Coal Board in accordance with the provisions of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950.

The National Coal Board is responsible for dealing with claims for subsidence damage, and I am asking the Chairman to write to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, by raising the values in the Act by the percentage amount of the fall in the purchasing power of the £ since 1950.

No, Sir.

Is not that a very mean reply? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the purchasing value of the £ has fallen by 20 per cent. since the passage of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950? Should not the rateable value of the dwellings, for which compensation is payable, and the minimum grants made by the Exchequer, be raised by 20 per cent. in order to keep pace and give value for what was the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed?

The person receiving the compensation payable for the repair of small houses is not prejudiced. He is automatically protected against increases in expenditure, since he receives the cost of repairing the house.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will modify the line north of which larger allocations of coal are made available so that it runs south from the Wash to the Thames and includes East Anglia in the higher allocation area.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend regrets that present coal supplies do not permit him to increase the allocation in any area.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that although East Anglia is the healthiest part of the United Kingdom it also has the coldest wind—the east wind? Will he not look again at this matter and give it his consideration?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have considered this point very carefully. Having lived in Norfolk myself, I have some sympathy with his remarks, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and this line, which has been in existence since 1942, has substantial merits, as well as being recognised and understood. For my hon. Friend's comfort, I would point out to him that a higher proportion of the permitted maximum supply goes to the eastern region, and the average receipt per allocation is about 3 hundredweight higher than in any other region.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this line is certainly not understood in the county of Norfolk, where the north-east winds make weather conditions utterly different from those in, say, Bournemouth and Torquay, which have the same allocation? Does my hon. Friend realise that this line is utterly unrealistic, and will he give further consideration to the matter?

My hon. and gallant Friend may be right in saying that it is not approved of in East Anglia or Norfolk, but I think that it is understood. As I pointed out, the average receipt per allocation is 3 hundredweight higher in the eastern region than in the southern region to which he referred.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many dollars are being spent by Britain to buy United States coal for Eire.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement concerning the change in policy about the export of coal to the Republic of Ireland.

I understand that instead of supplying a similar quantity from the United Kingdom the National Coal Board has arranged for the direct shipment into the Irish Republic, at a cost of about $600,000, of some American coal which the Board had already bought as part of their import programme. There has been no change in general policy regarding these exports which are the subject of a trade agreement made in 1948 between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

In view of the drain on our currency, is not the Minister going to do anything about remedying the position? Will there be any repetition of these imports from the United States into Ireland, in view of the currency question I have referred to?

The question of currency does not arise in this case because the coal had already been bought and had to be paid for in hard currency, whether it was imported into this country and we exported it to Ireland, or whether it was imported into this country and other coal was exported to Ireland, or whether it was diverted directly to Ireland.

While supporting the traditional link there is in coal supplies to Ireland, can my hon. Friend assure the House that there is no loss to the National Coal Board in re-selling this coal in Eire?

The export prices of coal are negotiated as commercial agreements by the National Coal Board, and it would be for the Board to say whether or not there was any loss on that transaction.

Would not the Minister agree that it is unfair to the energetic exporters who are earning dollars for us to find we are importing coal?

That is a very much wider question. American coal has had to be imported to meet home demand.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the functions of the Coal Committee set up by the Council of the Association of the European Coal and Steel Community.

The Coal Committee has been set up to examine matters of common interest on coal coming within the terms of the Agreement. At the meeting of the Council of Association held on 17th November it was decided that the committee should review the coal situation in the widest terms, including the present coal supply difficulties both in the Community and the United Kingdom.

Will this Committee be entitled to consider manpower as well as materials? In view of the fact, for example, that Italy needs British coal and is suffering from unemployment and has men who are willing to come to work in our mines, whereas Britain needs miners and would benefit from increased exports of coal, would the Committee be entitled to consider that subject with a view to reaching an agreement which might be of benefit to both countries?

What the hon. Gentleman suggests would certainly fall within the review of coal in its widest terms. When the Coal Committee has made its review it makes what recommendations it thinks fit to the Council of the Association of the European Coal and Steel Community.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to give a wrong impression by his answer to that supplementary question. Would he not agree that the subject of Italian miners in British mines is one to be negotiated between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board?

I appreciate the right hon. Member's question. If I missed the point of the supplementary question put to me by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), I apologise. I quite agree that the question of employment is entirely a matter for the Coal Board, and that it is its custom to negotiate and review it with the National Union of Mineworkers. The hon. Member's supplementary question was on the availability of manpower.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how stocks of house coal, at the latest convenient date, compare with one year earlier; how much higher in price, per centum and in shillings per ton, the retail price will be, at an average, in respect of current house coal stocks both in merchants hands and otherwise, compared with one year earlier; and if he will give an assurance that current house coal stocks are suitably distributed and adequate to meet maximum household allocations during this winter.

Merchants' stocks on 12th November were practically the same as last year. Average prices for all householders are not available but, in the zone which contains Kidderminster, the present maximum price for Group 4 house coal is 15s. 3d. per ton (13 per cent.) higher than a year ago. Some maldistribution of stocks still remains as the result of the rail strike, but this should be corrected before we reach the worst months of winter. The householder's allocation is met primarily from current production, the level of which cannot be guaranteed in advance, but every effort will be made to supply merchants with enough coal to meet demands.

Does that reply mean that all grades of house coal are available in all parts of the country to meet a normal winter demand?

No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot go as far as that. As my hon. Friend knows, Group 1 and Group 2 house coal, for instance, are a very small proportion of the total and are certainly not sufficient, in any event, to be available in all regions to meet all demands.

Does not my hon. Friend's answer prove that the mining industry has most loyally operated the golden rule set by all nationalised industries, which is to give the wretched public worse quality at increased cost?

No, Sir. I cannot accept that from my hon. and gallant Friend. The steps which the National Coal Board is taking to improve quality are very substantial, and they are meeting with success.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that experimental underground gasification of low-grade sulphurous coals in thin seams in the Bayton and Rock areas of Worcestershire is causing emission of noxious fumes over a wide area; what instructions he has given to his staff operating this plant with a view to abatement of the fumes; and, in view of growing concern among local residents in an area of special scenic beauty and agricultural importance, what further safeguards he now proposes.

These important trials cannot be continued except at the risk of some air pollution, but everything is being done to keep it to a minimum.

But is my hon. Friend aware that these underground gasification experiments are causing a very nasty smell round Kidderminster? While we all desire to see a satisfactory outcome to these important experiments, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he can persuade his local officials to promote and implement a policy of clean air in the Kidderminster area, as elsewhere?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend's constituency has been so adversely affected, but I am afraid that while the production is in an experimental stage it is unavoidable to burn gas to waste. If the experiments prove economically satisfactory and they go into a stage of commercial development, that waste gas will be utilised, when I hope there will be no such aromas as those to which my hon. Friend objects.

Could not the hon. Gentleman take steps to deal also with hot air in Kidderminster?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will include in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in a White Paper a statement showing what progress has been made by fuel and power nationalised industries in the development and production of by products.

My right hon. Friend recognises the importance of this subject, but it is fully covered in the Annual Reports of the industries and he does not consider the publication of a special statement is necessary.

I am well aware of the various Reports, but is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very difficult to follow them? Would it not be advisable to co-ordinate them and present a comprehensive survey to hon. Members? Would he reconsider the matter? It would not cost very much.

To do it would involve simply the reproduction of a summary of certain sections of individual Reports and if it were done for one purpose, it would be thought desirable to do it for other purposes. We should end by getting to the stage of reproducing the same Reports in a different form.

As this is one of the main elements of progress in the fuel and power industries, is it not desirable to know what progress has been made? Apart from the information desired by hon. Members, is it not desirable to acquaint the public with the progress made?

I think that the public are able to obtain the information very easily from the Reports, which are carefully indexed and in which the information is quite readily available.

asked the Minister of Supply for how many Vickers 1000 aircraft a Government contract has now been placed.

asked the Minister of Supply why he has decided to discontinue backing the production of the V.1000 transport aircraft.

asked the Minister of Supply the grounds for the decision not to develop the Vickers 1000 and its civil equivalent.

It has taken longer than was hoped to overcome some of the problems of meeting the specification laid down for the V.1000. In these circumstances, and in view of the urgency of the need to re-equip Transport Command, it has been decided to take the long-range Britannia which has been developing well and which can be made available earlier. The contracts for one prototype and six production aircraft have, accordingly, been cancelled. It is not intended to provide public funds for the development of a civil version of the V.1000, since British Overseas Airways Corporation have no requirement for it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the free enterprise of America finds it necessary to subsidise civil air development, and would he not agree that, unless this country can find some suitable method of assisting civil aircraft development, it may well be that there will be no first-class British trans-Atlantic aircraft operating in the late 1960's or early 1970's.

The Government do a great deal to assist the development of civil aircraft, and I think rightly, but the point in this case is that they cannot support the development of an aircraft when there is no home operator willing to purchase it.

Is the Minister aware that, when the Brabazon was scrapped, the manufacturers defended the amount of money that had been spent on her on the ground that it had provided them with the knowledge that would solve all the problems associated with the building of heavy aircraft of this nature in the future, and when we faced these problems in the V.1000, where had that knowledge fled?

I think that a great deal of the work done on the Brabazon has gone into the development of the Britannia as the first long-range trans-Atlantic turbo-prop aircraft.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern at this disappointing and retrograde decision? Would he look at it again, particularly in the light of the fact that the decision is welcomed only by competitors in the United States of America and that it is a great advantage to the United States industry and a great loss to ours?

This was not an easy decision to take, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it was the subject of a great deal of thought before it was reached. However, for the reasons I have made clear in my Answer, I cannot accept that Her Majesty's Government should support the civil version of this aircraft from public funds.

But is it not rather unfair to lay this decision on an alleged lateness by the firm, in that, although the prototpye is a year late, the firm still claims that it can deliver the aircraft by the original flying date, namely, 1960 or 1961? Secondly, does not this decision mean that the American companies, the Douglas and the Boeing, will, in effect, be so far ahead of us in the next development of the pure jet that we shall have 10 or 20 years to make up at some stage afterwards? Thirdly, is not the real point this, that the right hon. Gentleman was told that he had to economise in his Department's expenditure?

The third point is certainly not true. The reasons why we cancelled the military version I made clear, also the reasons for not supporting the civil version. I do not accept the gloomy view of the right hon. Gentleman about the future prospects of jet air transport, and on the point about the date I cannot accept that either. The original date was well before 1960 and cannot be met.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, since he made his original statement, the Dutch airlines have ordered a large number of the D.C.8, that this aircraft will be sold all over the world and that Britain will be left behind? Is he further aware that there is great disquiet in many circles in Britain about his decision on this matter? In the interests of all concerned, would he review it again, taking into account what the managing director and designer of Vickers, Mr. Edwards, has said, which is contrary to what my right hon. Friend has said?

I do not accept that this decision leaves Britain far behind on the Atlantic air route. So far as the decision is concerned, everyone concerned accepts that we cannot launch an aircraft of this category into the markets of the world unless we first have a home purchaser who will buy and operate it, which is not so in this case.

I appreciate that there may have been difficulties about this machine earlier, but would not the Minister agree that from a military point of view also it is a serious decision for the future of this country to abandon all attempt in the sphere of straight-jet transport airliners, and will he not reconsider the question of developing something of this kind—whether the V.1000 or some other—because otherwise I agree with my right hon. Friend that we shall be in great danger of being left completely behind in this respect?

I think the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed, because R.A.F. Transport Command will be operating the jet transport Comet.

In view of the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will review his decision to abandon his support for the development of the V.1000 in view of the new performance figures just released by the manufacturers, since these reveal that the civil version of this aircraft is potentially superior to any projected United States long-range jet transport, in that it has more power, shorter take-off, better operating economy, and is designed round the most suitable type of engine for this work yet produced.

No, Sir. I have already explained the reasons for the cancellation of this aircraft. There is always room for differing views about the eventual performance of an aircraft which has not yet flown.

Might I beg the Minister to reconsider his decision, having regard to the modified designs submitted by the makers? At this moment we have £2·3 million invested in developing the aircraft. The carcase is very nearly completed and the prototype could be finished within twelve months. It is the only aircraft of its type available in the world and the only British pure jet transport aircraft which can compete with the Americans and keep Great Britain in her proper place and maintain her prestige in world affairs. I really beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter and consult the Minister of Transport about the civil development of this machine.

I can only repeat that this is a question of putting public money behind the development of an aircraft, and I cannot do that in the absence of evidence of a British purchaser.

asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible to reach satisfactory arrangements with regard to compensation for damage in the Clacton area as a result of explosions from Foulness and Shoeburyness, he will agree to cease these explosions forthwith.

I do not accept that arrangements with regard to compensation for damage are unsatisfactory. I am aware that some of the claimants have received less than they claimed, but as to that, I would refer my hon. Friend to the full explanation given to him in the letters sent by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The explosions are a regrettable necessity, and it is not possible to stop, or even to reduce, the defence work which gives rise to them.

is my right hon. Friend aware that the simple request of the people in the Clacton area is that there should be no firing without fair compensation? I hope that he will see to it.

That, in effect, is what we are doing.

asked the Minister of Supply to what countries, or manufacturers in countries, licences have been granted for the production of Vampire jet aircraft; and what conditions have been made when granting these licences that the aeroplanes manufactured there under will not be used in contravention of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950.

Licences for the manufacture of Vampire jet aircraft have been granted to the following countries or to manufactureres in these countries—in chronological order—Switzerland, France, Italy, India and Australia. A licence was also granted in 1949 to Egypt, but it has never been operative. All the licences were granted prior to the Tripartite Declaration in 1950, and the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Will not the Minister take some steps to see that if any Vampires are manufactured at the present time they will not be manufactured in such numbers and exported in such a way as to make the Tripartite Agreement null and void, and will he also inquire into the question of the Italian supply, which was denied in this House before, but which the New York Times has authenticated? The matter is a serious one and would interfere with the Tripartite arrangements made between the countries concerned.

My responsibility is confined to this question of the terms on which licences are issued. I am afraid, therefore, that the important but wider question which the hon. Gentleman raises must be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply, and its serious implication, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Supply what account he takes of membership of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors in placing development contracts.

None, Sir. Contracts are placed with companies able to do the work irrespective of membership of the Society.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to ensure that this information is disseminated widely throughout the British aircraft industry?

I will certainly do my best in that respect, and I am sure that the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend will contribute towards it.

asked the Minister of Supply what long range jet aircraft, suitable for North Atlantic passenger operations, is now being developed in this country under the sponsorship of his Department.

The de Havilland Comet IV, which will be suitable for operation on the North Atlantic route with a single refuelling stop.

Is the Minister aware—he must surely be so aware—that a refuelling stop is not good enough for the 1960's, and does he not realise that he is now confirming the fears which were expressed on previous Questions, namely, that this country is now giving up the struggle for a straight jet aircraft capable of Atlantic service, which will undoubtedly be the aircraft of the 1960's?

If we do not have in the early 1960's a straight jet non-stop trans-Atlantic aircraft, neither will the Americans have a non-stop trans-Atlantic turbo-prop aircraft. I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers already given in reply to previous Questions about the reasons for not proceeding with the V. 1000 civil version.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is mounting uneasiness on this matter by all concerned with the welfare and future prosperity of the aircraft industry that certain decisions of his Department are undoubtedly unwise, and will he undertake to give this matter completely fresh consideration?

I said in reply to an earlier Question that the decision on the Vickers 1000 was not taken without anxious and prolonged thought. I do not think I can add anything to that statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply confirms what we have suggested, that the Government are really abandoning the whole field of long range jet transport for both military and civil purposes, and that to refer to the Comet, with all its virtues, is really irrelevant? Surely it is a really serious national consideration to abandon, as the right hon. Gentleman has now admitted, the whole field of future development?

That is neither accurate, nor, I think, in consonance with the general interests of British exporting industries. We are no more abandoning long range jet transport aircraft to the Americans than they are abandoning the turbo-prop aircraft to us.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are no more abandoning the long range jet aircraft to the Americans than they are abandoning the turbo-prop aircraft to us. We are exporting the turbo-prop aircraft, which the Americans are not. Now the question of the pure jet arises. If we are not going to make it, we are abandoning it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no other pure jet of this size and capacity that anybody is discussing. The right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, killed it. Am I not right in thinking that the expenditure of £20 million between now and getting the aircraft into the air regularly is all that stands between us, and that thereafter there would be an export model, and each of these export models would be worth Ell million? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it sensible to abandon the aircraft in view of that situation?

All we shall not have is a pure jet aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic in both directions non-stop in the early sixties. So far as other developments are concerned, the point that I have been making is that I cannot put public money into the development of an aircraft for which there is no prospective purchaser when it is generally accepted by all concerned that such an aircraft cannot be launched in world markets without a home purchaser.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying with the authority of his Department that the turbo-prop will continue satisfactorily to serve the long range jet field in the middle and end of the sixties? Does he not think—I ask him to consider what he is saying—that the future lies in the straight jet rather than the turbo-prop for long range?

The British Overseas Airways Corporation has made it clear that its requirements for the early sixties are already met by the aircraft which it has on order.

asked the Minister of Supply on what date he made the decision to allow the cost of advertising of service aircraft in trade journals but not the national Press, as an element chargeable by aircraft manufacturers to his Department.

The practice of disallowing the costs of promotional advertising in the national Press is at least ten years old.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not a very satisfactory ban and that it is broken? As the Government have stopped promotional advertising of gas and electricity, does he not think that the full-page Press advertisements of the Hawker Siddeley Group, for example, are unnecessary and unlikely to influence the Royal Air Force in the purchases which it makes?

I have no evidence whatever that the rule is being broken. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, perhaps he will be good enough to forward it.

asked the Minister of Supply what principles he applies in determining whether new aeronautical research projected shall be financed wholly or partly by his Department.

Where aeronautical research and development projects are of a purely military nature and are promoted by my Department or result from Service requirements, it is normal for the cost to be borne by my Department. Where, however, such projects have obvious commercial possibilities, the extent of the contribution from public funds is a matter for negotiation in each case in the light of the circumstances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large body of hard-pressed taxpayers will warmly welcome any decision by the Ministry of Supply to economise, provided that the defence of the country is secured, and that any expenditure put into civil aeronautical research should be applied, as he has indicated in reply to recent questions, to projects which can secure a more or less immediate economic return?

asked the Minister of Supply how much research has been done by his Department to discover a method of reducing the noise of jet engines while they are being tested in aircraft on the ground; and what are the results of that research.

On the scope and detail of the research programme I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), and Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 28th June and 14th December, 1954, of which I am sending him copies. I am glad to say that the development of mufflers and pens for Hunter aircraft, which was undertaken as an experiment, has met with considerable success. Similar noise reducing equipment is being installed or developed by other companies with the encouragement of my Department.

Will my right hon. Friend say that we have not yet perfected a device for reducing the noise of jet engines under test, and whether, when such a device is perfected, it will be obligatory for aircraft manufacturing companies to install it in factories close to built-up areas?

We have a definite and most important responsibility for ensuring that aircraft manufacturers do not make any more noise than the absolute minimum necessary in developing their aircraft.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the noise will be considerably reduced by 1960?

asked the Minister of Supply how many modifications to the Valiant aircraft have originated in his Department; and how these compare in number with modifications from other sources?

About 270 of the modifications to the Valiant, approved up to 11th November, 1955, originated in the Ministry of Supply. The remaining 700 were either originated in the Air Ministry or were put forward by the contractor.

Will my right hon. Friend say how this compares with other aircraft of a similar type recently completed?

I should say it is a fairly reasonable number of modifications for an aircraft of this size, and I think it compares reasonably with the experience of the United States with similar machines.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alterations he intends to make in the regulations for licensing boars, in view of the recommendations by the Committee on Development of Pig Production in the United Kingdom.

The recommendations of the Committee relating to boar licensing are among those on which I am consulting the interests concerned.

When my right hon. Friend comes to make his decision, will he consider using the information collected in the Pig Recording Schemes started by his Department?

Yes, Sir; I will certainly do that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been made to him regarding the need to establish standards for the meat content of sausages; and what action he is taking in the matter.

I have received representations from a number of food and drugs authorities and from organisations representing public analysts, manufacturers and traders. I have asked the Food Standards Committee to review the position.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the efforts he is making to rid the sausage of suspicion will receive almost universal approval?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very solicitous that the homely "banger" should be held in high repute and will take every step I can to ensure that that is so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officers of the former and separate Ministry of Food have been declared redundant; how many have been found employment elsewhere than in his present Department; how many of those transferred to his present Department have been promoted to appointments above permanent officers of the former separate Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries who have long experience of the work involved; and why such transfers have been made.

About 38,000 officers were released in the course of contracting the Ministry of Food. In the later stages 4,861 redundant established officers were transferred to other Departments; and 70 more have been transferred with their work since the amalgamation of my two offices. On amalgamation officers of the two Departments became members of one combined staff. I should think it unprofitable to undertake a special analysis of the origins and present posts of those who have been promoted on merit since then in accordance with procedures settled in agreement with staff representatives.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask him to take note of the fact that in the provinces there has been some resentment at officers having to take second place to men who have no experience of the work on which they are engaged?

I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that the correct aim when the two Departments were amalgamated was to weld them into one Department. That has been my aim. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that promotions have been decided by considerations of merit, service and technical qualifications.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that Parkinson's law does not apply in this case?

I should require notice of that question.