asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what rate of pension will be payable under the proposed scheme to women aged over 50 years, widowed after 27th February, 1956, who have been married for more than three but less than ten years.

Forty shillings a week, assuming the contribution conditions to be fully satisfied. This applies, in fact, to all such women widowed since 5th July, 1948.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether a similar retrospective arrangement will apply to the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee when they become law?

I would like notice of questions with respect to particular recommendations.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the present purchasing power of the 10s. widows' pension in terms of its value when first introduced.

Five shillings and sevenpence on the basis of changes in the cost of living index and the Interim Index of Retail Prices between January, 1926, and January, 1956.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these widows are having to pay more than 5s. 7d., which is the total value of their original pension, as the National Insurance contribution to maintain their qualification for insurance? Surely that is an argument for making some change in the present regulations relating to the 10s. widows?

I follow the hon. Lady's point, but she will appreciate that the fall in the value of money is also reflected in the real value of the contributions. She cannot just subtract 5s. 3d. from 5s. 7d. and make it 4d.

But surely there is a contractual obligation involved here. Would the Minister not agree that these women, as a result of their husbands' contributions, were entitled to a 10s. pension? Cannot he take some steps to ensure that they do get an equivalent 10s. pension at today's value?

The hon. Lady will recall that on 27th February I went at some length into the reasons why it did not seem right to place a further burden upon the National Insurance Fund in respect of increasing these pensions. I know the hon. Lady will not think me discourteous when I say that I cannot really mobilise all those arguments in reply to one supplementary question, at any rate within a reasonable length of time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the widow's pension of today and that of October, 1951.

On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the National Insurance widow's pension is 9s. more than that of the rate current in October, 1951.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the retirement pension of today and that of October, 1951.

On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the retirement pension is 4s. 3d. more than that of most retirement pensions in October, 1951, and 9s. more than that of some of them.

The Minister keeps saying "on the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices." But on the actual spending power of those people concerned, does he believe that those figures still hold good?

Yes, the Interim Index of Retail Prices is the best available instrument for measuring these changes over the years, and has been so accepted by Governments of both parties.

In view of the announcement made last week by the Minister of Labour and National Service about a new cost-of-living index, is the right hon. Gentleman considering with his right hon. Friend the recommendations made by the Phillips Committee that there should be a special index for the classes of person who are beneficiaries under his Ministry?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the publication of indices of this kind is within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, and not mine.

I agree, but may I again ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider with his right hon. Friend whether the time is not appropriate, in view of this new proposal, to consider implementing the proposal made by the Phillips Committee which was definitely directed to those who are beneficiaries under the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Cost of Living Advisory Committee recommended in a contrary sense against the publication of more than one monthly index, which view was accepted by the late Government. I am always in touch with my right hon. Friend. The question of the publication of indices is for him and not for me.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the difference between the purchasing power of the present basic 100 per cent. disability war pension and that of October, 1951.

On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the present 100 per cent. disability war pension is 13s. 11d. above that of the pension current in October, 1951.

Do not all these answers of my right hon. Friend show that this Government and this party have, in fact, carried out their undertaking to give help where help is most needed?

I find it very difficult to disagree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will amend the earnings rule so as to allow pensioners to earn £104 per annum without deduction as an alternative to £2 per week.

I understand that this suggestion is, with others, under consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in connection with their current review of the earnings limits. I must await their Report.

I am grateful for that answer, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is a matter of importance to some pensioners who would find it of great assistance if this reform could be introduced?

I do not wish to anticipate the Committee's report, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a spreading of the period would work to the disadvantage of certain classes of these pensioners where there are fairly large intermittent earnings, and therefore this is just the sort of matter which one wants the Committee, with the evidence before it, to consider.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made with the report and when he expects to receive it?

I have nothing to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during a recent debate when she indicated that we hoped for it in the late spring.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the present state of experiments in the underground gasification of coal; and whether these experiments have yet reached the stage of pilot plant development.

A demonstration at a site in Worcestershire, concluding the first six years of experimental work in underground gasification, was successfully completed at the end of last year. A technical report covering all the work done by my Department and the National Coal Board between 1949 and November last will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office within the next few days. This work has not so far included construction of pilot-scale plant, and I am now discussing the next stage of development with the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Authority.

In view of the fact that the last reports that were published showed that these experiments were not very successful from the economic point of view, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the more recent experiments have shown that it is possible to conduct this sort of work economically and whether he is discussing the matter with the National Coal Board on that basis?

I would have said that the recent experiments hold out the prospect of the economical exploitation of underground gasification, but full calculations must await the establishment of a pilot-scale plant.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to make a statement, in the light of the views expressed to him by a national deputation on 19th January, on the recommendations of the Turner Committee on Mining Subsidence.

I hope to make a statement shortly after the Easter recess.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantity of concessionary coal is allowed to clerks and shorthand typists employed by the National Coal Board.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an estimate, based on Tables 41 and 47 of his Statistical Digest, of the approximate quantity and value of the free coal received by the individual coal miner per annum.

I am informed that those in receipt of free coal or coal at concessionary prices get on average about 8 tons a year, worth about £27 at pithead prices. Responsibility for determining the categories of persons entitled to this coal rests with the National Coal Board.

Can my right hon. Friend say how long this practice has been in existence? I accept that the men working at the face should get concessionary coal, but why should the practice be extended to other employees, placing a charge on the ordinary consumer?

I am informed by the National Coal Board that this is a longstanding practice.

Is the Minister aware that this has been a matter settled with wage rates for well over a century?

Is the Minister aware that concessionary coal is part of the wages of the men, and that to interfere with it would cause much trouble?

I am so aware, and I hope my answer indicated that I do not consider that this is a matter requiring Ministerial interference.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will amend the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the Costs of Coal Distribution, so as to give the Committee power to investigate and make recommendations about the present methods of coal distribution.

No, Sir. The terms of reference are already wide, and I have no doubt that the Committee will consider methods of distribution in so far as these are relevant to an investigation of costs.

Is the, Minister aware that the terms of reference as drawn so far are concerned with costings and prices? How can he say that that includes methods? Will he write a letter to the Committee telling it that it can review methods of distribution if it wishes to do so?

I should not have acquired the Committee which I have acquired if the terms had been narrow. The terms are deliberately drawn wide, and it would be inimical to that width and generality if I were to specify certain subjects, as the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Minister of Supply the expense entailed in holding the recent public auction sale of Government surplus goods at Melton Mowbray; the quantity of paint sold; how much it realised; and how this compares with the purchase price.

The expenses of the two-day sale were £1,900. One hundred and fifty-eight thousand five hundred and thirty-four gallons of liquid paint and 10½ tons of dry paint were sold for £26,302, which is about a quarter of the estimated purchase price.

In view of the ridiculously low prices which are realised at such sales, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many other Government Departments have been ordering similar paint over the last twelve months? Is he not aware, in this matter of paint, that the paint manufacturers stated that there was no need to have ordered such huge quantities because they hold big stocks and can execute orders at very short notice? Why has this big loss occurred?

My responsibility in this matter is to dispose of surplus stocks on the best possible terms, and if the hon. Member can suggest any way of getting a better price than at a public auction, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Is the Minister satisfied that this was a genuine sale and not rigged by a gang of dealers who discourage, by bribes and threats, genuine bids, and afterwards proceed to "knock," where they share out the swag?

My officials keep very careful watch to make sure that auctions are conducted on the proper lines and are not rigged. My Parliamentary Secretary has visited both recent auctions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get ready for the next auction sale, because the War Office has taken into stock another 1,100,000 gallons of paint since the beginning of 1955?

Any questions about the acquisition of paint by the War Office should be put to the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of orange juice has been disposed of by his Department because of deterioration since 1st January, 1954; to whom it was sold; how much it realised, and how this compares with the cost price; and what was the condition of the orange juice when sold by his Department.

About 520,000 gallons were sold because the juice contained preservative making it unsuitable for distribution under the Welfare Scheme. The price realised was £41,000. Payment to the suppliers amounted to £740,000. The condition of the juice varied considerably and the sales were made without warranty. It is not the practice of my Department to disclose the names of buyers.

If this juice was not suitable for human consumption, why did the Minister sell it, as was done in the case of the condensed milk? Would it surprise him to know that plans are now well advanced for the sale of nine million bottles of orange squash to the general public? Why does not the Ministry of Food protect the public when this stuff, which is not fit for human consumption, is being sold?

I have no reason to suppose that this juice was not fit for human consumption. It was unsuitable for welfare use. [Laughter.] That is technically sound. I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for raising this issue, because these operations have led to a deplorable result, and he is quite right to be vigilant, but I hope that he will reserve a modicum of his indignation for his right hon. colleagues, because this orange juice was bought in the days of the Labour Government.

In what way had the orange juice deteriorated? Had it lost vitamins? If so, is not this loss equally undesirable for adults as for children?

That is not my technical advice. I think the actual loss is undesirable, whatever the cause, but my technical advice is that this orange juice was not unsuitable for human consumption in any way.

Is any warning given to the public when they are invited to purchase deteriorated orange juice or do they, as it were, buy it blind?

My hon. Friend can quite safely drink any of this orange juice that he wishes to drink.

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement concerning the death of three patients, and the outbreak of food poisoning which recently occurred at Hatton Mental Hospital.

This outbreak at the Central Hospital, Hatton, occurred on the evening of 4th March in three wards for elderly female chronic sick patients. I regret to say that three of the patients have since died. An inquest is being held on two of these deaths. The Coroner has adjourned it until next Thursday so that he may have before him the pathologist's report.

Is the Minister aware that 34 per cent. of the female patients resident in mental hospitals in the Midlands, including Hatton, are suffering under extreme conditions of overcrowding? I appreciate that he cannot say more about Hatton now, but can he say what steps he is taking to reduce the number of people in these hospitals over the age of 65, as they are particularly vulnerable in the case of an outbreak of sickness?

I know that there is a considerable amount of overcrowding in the mental hospitals in that region, but at the Central Hospital at Hatton two new wards of 80 beds are almost completed, and that will improve the state of affairs at that hospital.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is need for increased accommodation for the elderly chronic sick at St. Luke's Hospital, Rugby; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.

The Regional Hospital Board is aware of the need and as soon as resources permit intends to take steps to meet it.

Is the Minister aware that there is much local feeling in the town about this state of affairs, despite the fine work done by the matron and the staff? Can the hon. Lady tell me how many there are on the waiting list at the moment and, more important, what is the average length of lime a patient is on the waiting list before being admitted?

The reply to the first half of the supplementary question is that there are fifteen males on the waiting list and twenty-two females, and in the whole group there is a total of 407 beds for chronic sick. The first essential, even before we provide new accommodation, is to increase the staff, which would enable us to open, in another hospital in the group, 42 beds which are now closed through lack of staff.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some of the cooking demonstrations on television programmes of the British Broadcasting Corporation, particulars of which have been sent to him, are in breach of his food hygiene Regulations; and what action he is taking in the matter.

I understand that the programmes were broadcast from Scotland which is outside my jurisdiction. I am, however, assured that all parts of the body that came into contact with the food were washed before the demonstration, but unfortunately it was not found possible to televise this process.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that, as the B.B.C. has such an influential effect upon the people of this country, it would be as well if, wherever possible, it could set a good example rather than a bad one?

I entirely agree. I should like to reiterate that it is most important that food should be touched by hand as little as possible in cooking. Where it is necessary to touch it, it is hoped that the hands and, as in this case, the elbows also, will be clean.

asked the Secretary of State for War how far the letter he has sent to all Army units about "spit and polish practices which should be forbidden is of that type of Army letter which is to be regarded by units as an instruction and how far it is to be regarded as a suggestion only and therefore left to the discretion of individual commanding officers as to whether or not the reforms are introduced.

The purpose of the letter was to lay down the general policy. Its detailed execution is left to commands.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement, which was welcomed in this House, was not so warmly welcomed at Catterick, where it is claimed that the recruits really like "bull"? In view of that, could the hon. Gentleman arrange for a referendum to be held among other ranks at Catterick to clear up the matter? May I also ask what steps the War Office has taken to clear this matter up and to get it into the heads of the "brass hats" that the Army of the future—the technical Army—needs intelligent orders and instructions for intelligent men?

The policy has been quite clearly laid down and we feel that its execution can safely be entrusted to unit and formation commanders.

Is it true that at the entrance to Catterick Camp a large notice board has been put up saying, "Beware of the bull"?

I understand that one newspaper has offered a prize of half a guinea for the best "bull" stories.

Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that if we bring to his attention cases in which the intention of the War Office is not being carried out, disciplinary action will be taken against the commanding officer concerned?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the concern which has arisen as a consequence of his ruling that the members of the Dartford Rural District Council who are tenants of council houses were debarred from voting in connection with local council house rents when he gave approval to other members of the same council who are owner-occupiers to vote on the charges for emptying cesspools in which they have an interest; and if he will issue further instructions to clarify the position.

As regards the first case mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 28th February, 1956.

Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the degrees of difference in these cases are too subtle for ordinary people to determine, and that all that happens, it appears, is a capricious exercise of the discretion of the Minister, which can only cast doubt on his impartiality in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman review the whole situation?

The decision in the latter case is covered by precedent and the situation in regard to councillors who are council tenants was dealt with fully in the reply of my right hon. Friend.

Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider sympathetically extending a little what was said in the statement, and extending it to cases where—as here—a substantial number of councillors are involved, although they do not actually quite amount to a majority?

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to which local authorities he has refused loan sanction for private street works in the last six months.

I am sending this information to the hon. Member in the next few days.

Do I understand that there will be the names of fifty local authorities on this list? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a most retrograde step because these works on private streets should have been done years ago, and the existence of these unmade streets causes great dangers to health and sanitation? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, reconsider these decisions, in particular in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme?

If that is so, the application for loan sanction should have been made at an earlier date.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is his Department which has prevented local authorities from doing more than a certain amount of work each year and that therefore local authorities have not been able to get on with this work because his Department has laid down allocations?

No loan sanctions for this purpose were refused until the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th February.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of the costing inquiry at present being carried out into the inshore fishing industry, by whom the inquiry is being carried out in Northern Ireland; and what bodies and persons are being consulted.

In Northern Ireland such an inquiry would be a matter for the Ministry of Commerce. My right hon. and gallant Friend is informed that no inquiry is being carried out there.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the West German Government about payment for British troops stationed in Germany.

Negotiations have begun, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

I appreciate the Minister's position whilst negotiations are going on, but may I ask if he is aware that statements are appearing in a number of quarters—including B.B.C. news bulletins —about the proposals in those negotiations; and that it has been stated, with the authority of the B.B.C., that the West German Government propose to make no payment for the cost of troops in Germany, but are merely prepared to buy armaments from this country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that position is most undesirable, that the majority of people in this country would be most strongly opposed to it, and that, therefore, it is expected that he will take a firm attitude on the subject?

I have heard and read certain suggestions as to what is taking place in the negotiations, but while they continue I cannot possibly make a statement as to their progress.

Can we be assured that so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned he is not accepting the reported statement of the West German Finance Minister that they will pay nothing and only give orders for armaments here?

We are not accepting that position. We are going ahead on the footing which I have stated to the House of Commons before.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is much concern in the country about this matter? Can we take it that the policy of the Government is that there will not be any substantial reduction in the contribution made by the West German Government to the cost of occupation, notwithstanding the integration of West German forces in N.A.T.O.?

As I think I made plain on the last occasion I was asked a question on this subject, we are claiming, both under the terms of the protocol and in equity, that there should be substantial payments towards support costs.

Can we take it that the American Government are also taking part in these negotiations? Would it be correct to say that their attitude is broadly the same as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

The American Government are taking part in the negotiations together with us, and they are supporting the view we have taken, so far as I know.