asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board regarding the occupancy of houses under its ownership.

None, Sir.

:Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the public are bewildered when we tell them that the Minister has no power on these issues of direction? In view of the public interest, will he say whether he thinks that some word should be passed on to the Coal Board concerning the letting of N.C.B. houses; and further, does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the Board and local authorities are looked upon as model landlords?

In answer to the first part of the question, I suggest that the hon. Member should enlighten his constituents by referring them to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. In answer to the second part, I suggest that this is a matter essentially for the managerial responsibility of the Board, and in answer to the third part, I would say that I am sure that the Board and the local authorities do their best to be model landlords.

In view of the public interest, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible occasion.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the country's economic difficulties, he will introduce legislation whereby compensation payments to the ex-coal owners are withheld in the same way as post-war credits.

No, Sir. Practically all the compensation has already been issued.

Even admitting that only a tiny proportion of this compensation is left, does not the Minister agree that these figures provided by the National Coal Board have an adverse effect on the figures provided in the Annual Report? In view of the fact that these ex-coal owners have always taken out of the industry much more than they ever put in, will he give an assurance that they will be treated at least as meanly as the holders of post-war credits?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the compensation terms were determined by his own Government.

In view of the deplorable conditions in which the pits were taken over, would it not be appropriate if these ex-owners paid compensation to the nation?

Again, I see no reason why conditions now should be different from when the nationalisation Statute was passed.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consideration is being given to the purchase of coal outside the $ area.

Subject to quality and price, the Coal Board buy as much of their coal imports as possible from outside the $ area.

In order further to save $s, and also to extend East-West trade, will the Minister ask the National Coal Board to make inquiries regarding purchases from Poland and Germany?

Yes, certain purchases are being made from Poland, but I am afraid that the quantities available are limited.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how coal imports and exports during the first half of 1956 compare with one year earlier, and with what financial benefit or otherwise to our national economy.

The Trade and Navigation Accounts for the first half of the year are not yet available, and I cannot, therefore, give the figures asked for. But the latest returns from the Coal Board show that in the first 22 weeks of the year exports were 1–1 million tons less than in the corresponding period of last year, and imports 2 million less. The net effect of these changes is bound to be to the benefit of the balance of payments.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what economies have been achieved in the administration of local fuel offices and whether he will make a statement.

Between 1st January, 1952, and 31st May this year, the number of local fuel offices has been reduced from 1,453 to 492 by concentrating the work of the local fuel overseers in offices covering wider areas. This policy of amalgamation, together with other economies effected in the administration of the offices, has resulted in a financial saving of about £400,000 a year.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, which I am sure will give general satisfaction. Can he confirm that these amalgamations will not result in any lowering of standards to the consumer?

Yes, Sir. Indeed, it is true to say that these amalgamations have resulted in only one complaint. That was a recent one regarding an office which was amalgamated only on 1st May and has yet to be investigated. I am satisfied, and so is my right hon. Friend, that the service which is being given now is as good as ever.

Does the Minister appreciate that this is only picking at the problem? If he wants economy with efficiency, would it not be far more profitable to allow the fuel overseers to operate either through the Ministry or the local authorities and to be the sole distributors of fuel, thus cutting out the most unjust and unprofitable system which exists at present to the cost of the consumer?

That raises a very wide and different question.

Will my hon. and learned Friend consider the further economy of abolishing these offices and fuel rationing altogether?

No, Sir. It is not possible to abolish fuel rationing at present without incurring a heavy liability for importing coal. Meanwhile, until we have enough coal to satisfy in full the needs of consumers, the offices are necessary to ensure a fair distribution and the relief of the occasional case of hardship.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he took to establish the financial justification for the increase in coal prices which he authorised to be made last month.

Her Majesty's Government approved the latest increase in the pit-head price of coal after a detailed and critical examination had been made of the Coal Board's current trading position and of its prospective development. This examination left no doubt that the Board's accumulated deficit, standing at £37 million at the end of last year, would continue to rise if revenue were not increased, and that an increase in pit-head prices of 8 per cent. was required in order that the Board might recover a substantial proportion of this amount during the next two years.

Yes, but is my right hon. Friend aware that had I conducted the "detailed and critical examination" my conclusion might not have been the same as his? Why should this examination be conducted secretly within the fastnesses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power? Will not my right hon. Friend publish all the financial figures which led him to the conclusion that this substantial increase in coal prices was necessary, and give the whole House the benefit of scrutinising these important figures?

When it is a question of financial arithmetic, I do not see how different conclusions can be drawn from the same body of evidence. As for the second part of the supplementary question, I should have thought that the evidence was perfectly apparent in the figures already published.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that I am very far from satisfied?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what increase in the use of oil as a source of industrial power has occurred in the last 12 months compared with the immediately preceding 12 months; and what coal economy has thus been promoted.

Total deliveries of black oils—other than refineries' own consumption and diesel oil for road vehicles —increased by 1·2 million tons, or 18 per cent., between the year ending March, 1956, and the previous year, the coal equivalent of the increase being about 2 million tons.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes to place the same emphasis upon, and view with the same satisfaction, the increased use of oil as a substitute for coal, as did his predecessor, or has there been any change of Ministerial policy in this material regard?

I cannot view with satisfaction the substitution of oil for coal, for oil involves a net burden on the balance of payments—

Just what I have been saying.

—but I am afraid that I cannot share my hon. Friend's restrictionist—as I see it—attitude towards the energy problem. That problem is not one of the substitution of one form of fuel for another. The problem is such that we need every kind of fuel we can lay our hands on. To sustain British industry and employment at a high level, we have to have great imports of oil and speed up conversion to oil.

While we may have some differences of opinion with him, is the Minister aware that we admire the way in which he is standing up to "Big Brother"?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure your attention has been drawn to the Orwell play, "1984". Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to speak of me as "Big Brother"?

I thought it was a term of affection.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has taken note of the report prepared by the experts of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation urging long-term investment in the coal industries of the member countries, including the United Kingdom, and drawing attention to the dangers of the popular misconception that nuclear energy will largely replace coal in the near future; and what action he proposes to take.

Yes, Sir. I consider this a most valuable report. It convincingly demonstrates the essential part that coal must continue to play in the economic life of Western Europe for many years to come, and confirms the need for further investment in the British coal industry.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he making any progress in spreading knowledge on these subjects among hon. Members on the benches below him, and will he say what progress he has made?

I should not like to anticipate the answer to that question.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking under Section 54 of the Electricity Act, 1947, to ensure that ex-employees of municipal corporations, whose pensions since the nationalisation of the electricity industry have been payable by the Central Electricity Authority, will gain benefits similar to those granted under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what requests he has received from the electricity and gas industries for him to apply the pension improvements of the Pension (Increase) Act, 1956, to their ex-municipal pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

The electricity and gas industries are responsible under existing Regulations for the payment of pensions under schemes made with my right hon. Friend's approval, and any question of improvement in benefits for ex-municipal employees is primarily a matter for consideration by the boards themselves. So far, no proposals have been submitted to him.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is at least a moral obligation on the Government, and on his Department, to ensure that these ex-employees of municipal corporations are not prejudiced as a result of nationalisation, and that they should receive the same measure of increase in pension as their colleagues in other departments which have not been nationalised?

The primary responsibility to observe any moral obligation that there may be rests upon the authorities concerned, and, of course, my right hon. Friend will consider carefully any proposals that they submit to him.

Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the 1952 Pensions (Increase) Act was applied to the electricity and gas industries? Surely that is an excellent precedent?

No, Sir. It would be wrong to say that the 1952 Act was applied to the ex-employees of these industries. It may have been taken into consideration to some extent, but it was certainly not applied.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on the retrospective payment of the pension increases recently approved by him for ex-company pensioners in the electricity supply industry.

I am anxious that this question should be settled as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member knows, the Central Electricity Authority has asked for approval of retrospective payment to 1st April, 1954. This request raises questions which affect similar classes of pensioner in other industries and is still under consideration.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to say whether it is the Treasury standing in the way, because in this case the industry is pressing?

The Treasury never stands in the way.

asked the Minister of Supply the estimated cost of carrying out the hydrogen bomb tests recently announced.

It would not be in the public interest to say what will be the cost of these tests.

Ought not the House to have some idea of the financial effect of such tests? How can we make a proper assessment? Does this not mean that there must be a colossal waste of money which surely could be saved if there were an attempt to reach agreement on the abolition of these tests, which seems more simple to achieve than agreement on the abolition of the weapon?

My right hon. Friend would like to give the information to the House, but the difficulty is that the publication of the figures would give an indication to other countries of the size of our nuclear effort.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in respect of the costings investigations into the price of fish which began in 1952.

The White Fish Authority's present inquiry into distributive costs and earnings was begun last year and relates to trading operations in 1954. The returns are now being processed, and the Authority expects to have its report ready by the late summer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the statement of costings includes a statement of the greatly increased financial obligations of the fishing industry?

I think that would not be relevant to this particular inquiry, which is related to the costs of wholesalers, fishmongers and fish fryers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food the position with regard to the consideration by the Food Standards Committee of the problem of the meat content of sausages.

I have now received the Committee's Report and, in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, I have arranged for it to be published at the end of this week.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not he is in favour of some standards for sausages, or is it his intention to publish a report and let the trade interests have a look at it before he comes to a decision?

After the Report has been published, I shall give all the interests concerned a chance of making representations to me. Then I shall make a decision.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the dates on which the county agricultural committee has visited Stockwood Farm, Keynsham, since the dispossession of the owner in December, 1952.

Members of the Committee visited the farm on 13th August, 1954, and on 11th July, 1955.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this farm has been properly watched since it was taken over and the previous owner evicted, as he was evicted only two and a half years after he took possession of the farm and it appears that it was two and a half years from his eviction before the agricultural committee even looked at the farm under its present tenant?

No, in addition to the two visits of the committee to which I have referred, the farm has been visited by the committee's land agent on 32 occasions during that period, and I am informed by the committee that it is very well satisfied with the standard of farming of the present tenant.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why no landlord repairs have been carried out on Stockwood Farm, Keynsham, which has been in his possession since December, 1952.

I am advised that these repairs are the responsibility of the owner. The county committee has sent his agents a schedule of the work required and is awaiting a reply.

Is it not a fact that a court ruling was obtained giving the present tenant a right to claim dilapidations and, in fact, he made no use of that and the farm is steadily dilapidating in its present condition?

I am advised that the decision of the county court does not refer to repairs which have accrued since the committee has taken possession of this farm but only to repairs which accrued prior to that date. As to the lack of current repairs, I am told that, although it is unfortunate for the tenant, it cannot be said that they are seriously interfering with production at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give instructions that the production figures for Stockwood Farm, Keynsham, be made available to the owner who was dispossessed for bad husbandry three and a half years ago.

This farm is let to a tenant, and I have no power to instruct him to disclose his production figures.

Is it not very difficult for the general public to know whether or not this eviction was justified if no comparable production figures are released in respect of the previous owner, who was evicted, compared with those of the present tenant who was put in by the committee, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is a deterioration in the buildings? How can he be satisfied that the farming is going well when dilapidations are occurring and no husbandry figures are made available?

I did not want to give the impression that I was complacent about the fact that dilapidations were not being made good. I should like to see the landlord make them good at the earliest possible moment. As to the general public being satisfied about the justice of the eviction, I think the greatest safeguard there is the appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I repeat that the committee, which has regular reports on this farm from its land agent, is satisfied that the present tenant is getting reasonably satisfactory production.

The previous owner was there for two and a half years only before he was turned out, and the present tenant has been there for three and a half years. Unless some figures are made available, it is impossible—as I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees—to determine whether or not the original eviction was justified.

I am afraid I could not ask a tenant to enable me to make public his production figures because, under the existing law, the agricultural return figures are made in confidence to the Minister.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the anxiety amongst Warwickshire farmers regarding his decision to close the grain silo at Rugby; and whether he will reconsider this.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 11th June to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and Newbury (Mr. Hurd).

I know that, but can the Minister tell me what use was made of this silo last year, if public money was lost, and also how much? He said last week that he knew of lessees for this among other silos. Can he tell us what evidence he has that there are lessees who would take this silo?

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the precise information for which he asks on either of those two points. I cannot give him the precise loss on the silo last year, but it was by no means fully employed, and there certainly was a loss. I can, of course, give him the loss on all the silos last year. In reply to the second question, it was only just recently that we asked for tenders and it is too early to say, but I understand that there are one or two people who have asked for particulars about the Rugby silo.

Would the right hon. Gentleman admit that, if we have a wet summer, many farmers fear that we shall see the silos full of imports of cheap Canadian wheat or Iraqi barley and they will not be able to get the full use of this silo?

I made this arrangement because I am very anxious that silos should be available when they are really wanted. I would remind the hon. Member that, in the excessively wet season of 1954—I hope to goodness we shall not have another harvest like that—even then silos were only partially used. I think it was up to 49 per cent. of capacity, and last year the amount dropped to only 26 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern arising from the Cohen Report on bread; and why the Report has been accepted in face of the evidence of the Medical Research Council which was endorsed by the British Medical Association in favour of the National loaf and the repudiation of the recommendations in favour of the fortified white loaf.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the evidence of the Medical Research Council, which has been endorsed by the British Medical Association, in favour of the National loaf and against the fortified white loaf, why he has accepted the recommendations of the Cohen Report in respect to the white loaf.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the opposition of leading nutritionists and medical organisations to the recommendation in the Cohen Report respecting the fortified white loaf, he will reconsider the matter before making regulations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he is giving effect to the recommendation of the Cohen Report in regard to the fortified white loaf in view of the opposition of leading medical bodies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the anxiety concerning the findings of the Cohen Committee Report on bread; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he accepted the Report of the Cohen Committee on bread despite the authoritative opinion of the Medical Research Council.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the substantial medical testimony now available in respect of the merits of National bread and the limitations of the fortified white loaf, if he will, in the public interest, reconsider his acceptance of the recommendations of the Cohen Report for a white loaf fortified by three synthetic products of a chemical factory.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on the fortified white loaf.

It was because of the conflict of scientific opinion regarding the nutritive value of flour of varying extraction rates that the Government in May of last year invited the President of the Royal Society to nominate a panel of independent persons of accepted authority representative of scientific and medical opinion. The panel had before it all the evidence to which the hon. Members refer.

Is the Minister really saying that the finest medical experts are wrong in their opposition to the replace. ment of nature's gifts by synthetic products of the chemical factories? In view of the importance of the matter, will he reopen it, not only to deal with the allegations about pandering to vested interests, but also to give all the facts to the public so that housewives who still insist on purchasing the sham loaf will at least have been warned about the situation?

I should like to repeat that 18 or so months ago, before this panel was set up, there was, without any question whatever, a formidable conflict of medical and scientific opinion on this point. As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I should like it to be absolutely clear that we are not proposing to prohibit anybody from eating bread made with flour of any particular extraction rate at all. The only prohibition we are imposing is on the use of flour which does not contain a certain minimum quantity of these three token nutrients.

Will the Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reasons which prompted him to favour one section of expert and medical opinion against another? Is he not aware that there is the feeling that the extra profit which is made out of the all-white loaf has had something to do with the decision which has been arrived at?

I should like it to be perfectly clear that it is the very reverse of the real situation to say that I have favoured one medical opinion against another. The whole object of what the Government did was to enable the Government to remain perfectly neutral in this matter as between two strongly expressed medical points of view. The Government could not, I think, have shown their neutrality more than by asking the President of the Royal Society to appoint a panel of neutral but eminent scientists and doctors to decide this problem.

Whilst recognising the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours to resolve this conflict, may I ask him whether he will not admit that he has failed? Has he seen the opinions recently expressed in medical journals, and is he aware that it appears that the weight of medical evidence is against him? In view of this, would he at any rate look at the matter again?

I think this may well be one of the controversies which will continue until the end of time. In the meantime, the consumer will in the future be able to choose the kind of loaf he or she wishes to eat. I feel that the Government are not entitled to prevent the consumer from exercising such choice, unless there is incontrovertible evidence that it would be to the detriment of his or her health.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, since the Cohen Panel recommended white bread as an excellent food, and since the Medical Research Council's own researches have shown enriched bread to be equal in every way to other types, including wholemeal or brown bread, it would be an excellent idea to give the consumer freedom of choice to eat the kind of bread which he prefers?

Is the Minister aware that the removal of the remaining Government subsidy, plus the substitution of white for National bread, will, in September, raise the price of the 1¾ lb. loaf by 4d. in many cases? In view of the effect of this on old-age pensioners and large families, would he consider scrapping both measures?

I do not think I can accept quite the hon. Gentleman's conputations of future increases in the price of bread. Whether the price of 70 per cent. extraction flour or 80 per cent, extraction flour is the lower depends upon a great number of factors, including the price of miller's offal.

In view of the fact that the Government should concern themselves more closely with the nutritional needs of the poorest section of the community rather than any other—I am sure the Minister would agree—and in view of the fact that the poorest section of the community eats a disproportionate amount of bread, should not the Minister consider the matter very carefully before he rejects the findings of the Medical Research Council and the British Medical Association?

The reasons the right hon. Lady has adduced were some of the reasons which led the Government to believe that the course they followed in putting this very important question to arbitration, before the best body possible, was the right way of tackling it. The Government had in mind precisely those points.

Is it not true to say that the panel set up was a panel of experts, long overdue, to consider this matter, and should not its conclusions be respected? Why should we resist the conclusions which were reached in this independent, full and complete inquiry?

I am quite sure that no hon. Gentleman would wish to question the competence of this panel, either collectively or individually.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, with your help, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent inferior bread from replacing the National loaf when the bread subsidy ends.

The composition of flour will be governed by Regulations to be made under the Food and Drugs Acts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless he introduces really stringent regulations, it is quite likely that before the end of the year most of the bread consumed in this country will be hardly more nutritious or digestible than steamed cotton-wool? In those circumstances, will he not reconsider the decision to allow the multiple bakers, who do not bake bread but merely steam it, a free hand to sell whatever kind of bread, doped with chemicals, they are willing to sell?

I could not accept the conclusions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn; they are, I think, quite unnecessarily depressing. I am, however, going to invite the Food Standards Committee to recommend whether any further regulations are required, other than the regulations we propose to ensure that all flour shall contain a minimum of three token nutrients.

In view of the fact that the Minister challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on his suggestion that the price is likely to go up by 4d., will he say by what the price will be increased?

No, I am not going to say that, but I challenge the computations in detail which the hon. Gentleman implied there, because I think it is at this stage quite impossible to say what is going to happen.

Why should there be any prescription at all once the subsidy has gone? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that anyone wishing to buy low extraction white flour, unadulterated by well-meaning people, will be able to do so?

I have said that our regulations will require that all flour must contain a certain proportion of these three token nutrients, whether in the form of the natural element in the flour or, in the case of low extraction rate flour, by the addition of nutrients.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the rise in price of many foods and the large amount of bread eaten by the children of the less well-paid workers, he will take steps to ensure that all bread sold contains an adequate amount of essential nutrients in addition to iron. vitamin BI, and nicotinic acid.

In the opinion of the panel on the composition and nutritive value of flour, no case has been made out for the addition of other nutrients to flour.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the panel recommended that these changes were possible provided there was a good mixed diet also, but that many children of the working classes are not getting this decent mixed diet as well and, therefore, there are many deficiencies in their diet, which could be put right by wholemeal bread but cannot be put right by this doctored stuff which is being supplied?

The panel considered very carefully the probable effects on all sections of the community, including the section to which the hon. Member refers, and came to the conclusion that the essential nutrients, even in the case of that section of the community, would be adequately supplied by the rest of the diet. As regards wholemeal bread, of course, everybody will be entirely free to buy it—[An HON. MEMBER: "If they can afford it."]—and I shall be among them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what method he is adopting to ascertain that the fortified flour used for making white bread is of not less than 70 per cent. extraction, and contains an adequate amount of protein and other essential nutrients.

In view of its higher cost, it is unlikely that any significant quantity of bread will be made from speciality flour of less than 70 per cent. extraction. 'The Food Standards Committee, however, as already announced, will be invited to consider whether any more extensive Regulations governing the composition of flour and bread are needed to protect the consumer.

Is the Minister not aware that these three token nutrients are not the only important ones in bread, but that there are many others? How will he determine that these other nutrients, which, I think he would agree, are of equal importance, are present in bread? How will he be sure that it is a 70 per cent. extraction and not, perhaps, a 65 per cent. or similar extraction? It may be suggested that it is not at the moment to the advantage of millers further to reduce the extraction, but a time may come when it will be to their advantage.

Again, I should like to make clear that no limit is being imposed to the extraction rate of flour. All we are proposing to say is that all flour, of whatever extraction rate, shall contain, whether in its natural state or added, a certain proportion of these three essential nutrients.

While the Minister says that he believes people should have freedom of choice, does he not feel that he has a duty to the poorest in the community. who understand nothing about extraction rates, as we do in this House, and that it is his duty to see that they get, and he helps them to buy, what is best for the nutrition of the family?

Again, that is precisely why the Government decided to ask this panel of distinguished scientists and medical experts to resolve the conflict of evidence.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that a conference appointed by the Medical Research Council reported that the consumption of a 70 per cent. extraction flour, even if partially fortified, would lead to a reduced intake of some nutrients; and whether he will now consult both the Medical Research Council and the Cohen Committee as to how such danger to the nutrition of the nation can be avoided.

The evidence of the Medical Research Council was taken fully into account by the panel before reaching its conclusions.

Does the Minister not consider that, when eminent scientists differ on an important question like this, he would be much wiser to take the course of least resistance and not risk the national nutrition merely at the desire of the millers?

Hear, hear.

I am always being pressed not to take the course of least resistance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for grants he has received under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955; and what is the amount in grants that has been paid out to highway authorities.

I have received two applications. No payments have yet been made.

Is the Minister aware that this is one of the schemes intended to assist the hard-hit upland areas of Wales and Scotland? Is he aware that there will be widespread disappointment in those areas that no grants have been paid out? Can the Minister say when grants will actually be paid out to the highway authorities?

I shall very shortly send out a memorandum of guidance to local authorities; but I am bound to say that the restrictions on capital expenditure at present in force make it extremely unlikely that I shall be able to approve proposals for immediate execution, much as I should like to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revise and increase the grants to be paid for the conversion of fishing vessels from coal burning to oil burning with a view to the replacement of coal-burning fishing vessels by oil-burning fishing vessels.

Such grants are not at present available. To introduce them would require legislation and this is under consideration.

Does the Minister realise the importance of this matter? Will he introduce legislation to have the desired effect? Does he realise that there are here involved very grave consequential problems affecting owners, crews and consumers, and that the matter is an urgent one requiring immediate attention?

I agree as to the importance of the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know, of course, that loans are available now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will state the districts visited by the officers of his marketing department when visiting the 336 shops selling potatoes on 28th May;

On 6th–8th, 13th–15th and 28th–29th May, eight of my staff of marketing officers carried out surveys of prices at which potatoes were on sale in shops and market stalls in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and London. On 5th June, prices in London alone were observed by two officers.

Is the Minister aware that in his original Answer he said that the investigations had been made on the day of his Answer—28th May—but that on that date no potatoes were available London at under 4d. per lb.? I have made investigations among hundreds of costermongers in the East End of London who have confirmed my figures. Will the Minister correct his?

No, I am afraid I cannot correct my figures. My advice is that on 28th May over half of the shops visited were offering potatoes at 3d. per lb. or less.

Under what authority does the Minister act in sending out these officials to make these inquiries?

One of the objects of having these officers on my staff is that they should perform duties of market intelligence.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority they act?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made by the Reorganisation Commission which is considering the question of the marketing of pigs; and if he will make a statement.

I have just received the Report of this Commission. Arrangements are now being made for it to be printed, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I hope to present it to the House next month.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what saving in staff has been effected in his Department consequent on the transfer of the administration of the independent agricultural research institutes to the Agricultural Research Council.

There has been a saving of five staff in my Department. By agreement, certain responsibilities are remaining with my Department during the transitional period and a further saving of one or two staff will be possible in due course.

Is the Minister aware that these savings do not appear among the higher level of his staff in this year's Estimates? Will they appear in future Estimates?

The savings are very small indeed, because, as the hon. Member knows, most of these institutions were, and still will be, administratively independent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the gift of the stallion, "Never Say Die", to the National Stud.

I am very glad to confirm that Mr. Robert Sterling Clark has signed a deed of gift under which the ownership of "Never Say Die" becomes vested in me and he will go to the National Stud. The gift will take effect at the end of the 1958 covering season. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government and of the British bloodstock industry, I should like to take this opportunity to express publicly our warm thanks to Mr. Clark for this most generous gift.

I am certain that all hon. Members will agree with my right hon. Friend in thanking this sportsman for his magnificent gift. Will my right hon. Friend see that this horse is used in such a manner that once again English horses can win English races?

I will do my best.

On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, may I be allowed to associate ourselves with the Minister in expressing our admiration of this welcome generosity?

Be careful that it is not sold back to the Americans.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the production of milk since the Annual Price Review of 1956 compares with previous years.

Sales off farms in England and Wales during the months of March, April and May are estimated this year to be 490 million gallons, compared with 445, 460 and 448 million gallons in the previous three years.

Does my right hon. Friend expect the production of milk to increase still further before the next Price Review as forecast by many people in farming? Bearing in mind that we already consume all the milk we produce and we import none how does my right hon. Friend anticipate that this increased production will be sold?

It is a difficult question. The trend of milk production looks like continuing upwards. Seasonally, we have now passed the flush and we shall not come up against serious trouble again until the spring of next year. I am, however, anxious about the position, and I believe that a further deliberate encouragement of milk production would mean an uneconomic use of our national resources.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the nature of the evidence he has received, and the sources from which he has received it, on which to base the terms and conditions of the White Fish Subsidy Scheme, due to operate from 1st August, 1956.

From the near and middle water fleet, the audited trading returns for last year; from the inshore fishermen, information on costs and earnings; and as regards both, consultations with the representative organisations and the White Fish Authority.

Will the Minister make that evidence available to the Members of this House and to the fishing industry generally?

I am afraid that would be very difficult indeed. It is coming to us in all kinds of forms. Some is written, some oral. It is extremely difficult to collate and put together in the form of a report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, when formulating draft Regulations, have regard to the tremendous increase of the costs of operating coal and diesel driven vessels, and to the fact that the original sum granted for subsidy has now depreciated in value to such an extent that the policy of tapering off will hit the steam vessels and the diesel vessels very hard indeed unless he modifies the terms of the Regulations?

Of course, the reason for our asking for these returns is precisely what the hon. Member has in mind, and that is that we want to find out exactly how much these costs have risen over the past year or so.

In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to me last week at Question Time, may I ask whether there is any way in which we can help in getting further information to the Government before they have to come to a decision on this very vexed question in August, because, as my right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, there have been certain difficulties in the inshore fishing industry lately which should have brought to the notice of everybody the dissatisfaction there is in this industry over rising costs and prices?

I doubt whether there is anything we can do now. We have been in touch throughout the past few months with fishermen's associations, in the case of the inshore fishermen with the inshore fishermen's associations, and we have done the utmost we could to ensure that we got as useful information as possible. I am afraid that, so far as the inshore fishermen's industry goes, it is still a bit sketchy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the problems involved in the White Fish Subsidy Scheme are various and technical; that they are urgent; that they can be resolved only on expert and authoritative evidence; and if he will take steps to appoint a commission to take evidence on the subject and to make recommendations to be embodied in the forthcoming White Fish Subsidy Scheme, due to operate from 1st August, 1956.

The answer to the first three parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir"; that to the last part "No, Sir".

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answers to this and to the preceding Question are far too pragmatic, and that evidence should be laid before this House and the fishing industry so that they can see whether any real attempt is being made to do justice to that industry?

I attempt on all occasions to be as pragmatic as I can. I shall have to reconsider my position, obviously, in view of what the hon. and learned Member has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the damage being caused to horticultural crops by spray drift; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware that damage from spray drift is widespread, but it may be serious in individual cases. The British Weed Control Council, on which all the interests concerned are represented, has made recommendations for the avoidance of damage and the need for care in spraying is being emphasised by my advisory officers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent exhibit put on by his Department at the Essex show, showing the damage that can be done to horticultural products by spray drift? Is he aware that it is becoming a very severe problem in parts of Essex? Would he consider making it compulsory for persons using sprays to hold third party insurance so that anyone who suffers damage because of spraying can claim damages against them?

I was not myself, unfortunately, able to visit the Essex show and so I did not see the exhibit to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am glad to know that it was a good one. Apart from shows, farm walks, and demonstrations, the National Horticultural Advisory Service is doing what it can to point out sensible precautions that ought to be taken. As to my hon. Friend's last suggestion, I will consider that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many marketing officers are on the establishment of his Department; and what are their duties.

The Ministry employs 14 marketing officers and 13 fresh fruit and vegetables officers. These officers deal with a wide variety of problems arising from the marketing of agricultural, horticultural and livestock products. They also visit markets to obtain information about wholesale prices, quality, supply and demand of home grown and imported fruit and vegetables and make reports on selected samples of certain horticultural products for grade assessment purposes.

In view of the very inaccurate results they got in the case of potatoes, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for these officers to attend a school in marketing research?

I am really very surprised by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. They chastised me the other day for inaction, but when I take action they chastise me for having taken it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the administration of the Marginal Production Scheme.

The changes noted by the Wilson Committee as under consideration at the time of their hearings were introduced last October. The more expensive programmes are no longer referred to Ministry headquarters, but all are dealt with by county committees. The specific recommendations of the Wilson Committee (which would require legislation) are under consideration.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the action he has taken, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that this is an obvious case for administrative reform, he will go ahead and deal with it as expeditiously as possible?

I am very anxious to do everything I possibly can to see if we can simplify our organisation and clarify our procedure still further.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what arrangements are in force for the reservation of tables on the Terrace for tea; what special circumstances caused all the tables to be reserved on Wednesday last; and whether he will review these arrangements which caused inconvenience to hon. Members who were unable to sit there while tables were being held for large parties.

Any hon. Member can reserve a table for himself and friends for tea on the Terrace for up to 20 persons by giving advance notice. All the tables had not been previously reserved on Wednesday, the 13th June, but 29 had been booked by Members and their guests by 4 p.m. Unfortunately, a number of these were not occupied until 5 p.m. In view of the inconvenience caused, I am taking steps as suggested by the hon. Member and will submit proposals to my Committee at their next meeting.

I am sure that hon. Members will be very pleased to know that the matter is being reconsidered, but ought not the hon. Gentleman to give notice to hon. Members when he institutes such a system of reservation? Is he not aware that, in the opinion of most of us, three guests is the limit that should be permitted on the Terrace? In view of the very limited accommodation, and the even more limited opportunities of availing ourselves of it, should he not abolish the reservation system altogether?

I did not institute that rule. It has been in existence for a long time, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken advantage thereof.

Will the hon. Gentleman afford the same facilities to the members of the Labour Women's Conference next year?

I can assure the right hon. Lady that the type of party does not interest us at all and that the same consideration is shown to any party organised by any Member on either side of the House.

asked the Minister of Health how many vacancies there are for district nursing staff in Worcestershire; and if he will state the areas in which these vacancies exist.

I am informed that the number of vacancies is 11; one in each of the following areas—Blackheath, Catskill, Evesham, Handbury, Hallow, Oldbury, Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, Broadway, Childswickham and Malvern.

asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the additional sum of £500,000 allocated for the provision of food for patients in mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions is, together with moneys, already available, sufficient for the provision of an adequate and balanced diet; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 7th May to Questions asked by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this extra sum was allocated it was only half what was required to ensure an adequate and balanced diet and that since then prices have increased still further, to such an extent that the £500,000 has been, as it were, wiped out? Will he not look at the matter again, to see if he can find some more money to ensure that these people are adequately fed?

No, I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This £500,000 is extra to the estimates, and the estimates are always contingent on price changes. Therefore, there is £500,000 extra, and £500,000 is not a negligible sum.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will report on progress in regard to the follow-up review of leucotomy cases being done by his Department; and when he proposes to publish the results of this.

Information is being collected, but this will take some time. It is too early to assess results or to decide upon publication.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the trouble his Department is taking in this matter? is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety about some of these cases, who are neither ill enough to be in mental hospitals nor entirely responsible enough to be in the outside world? Would he direct attention to the arrangements for after-care advice and supervision of all who have had this operation?

Certainly. We are looking into all those points.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a proportion, estimated at from 10 to 20 per cent., of patients treated by electric convulsant therapy suffer as a consequence from crush fractures of the spine; and if he will order an investigation so that the risks of this otherwise valuable form of treatment of mental illness can be accurately assessed and, if possible, guarded against.

I am making some inquiries and looking at the correspondence which my hon. Friend has sent me. I will write to him as soon as I can.

May I again thank my right hon. Friend for his interest? In view of the cases which I have submitted to him, will he insist in particular that anybody who, after this operation, complains of ill effects, should be immediately X-rayed and given suitable after-care?