asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how far the disease of chronic bronchitis, when it accompanies pneumoconiosis, is considered in the assessment of the loss of faculty.

While chronic bronchitis is not itself prescribed as an occupational disease, where pneumoconiosis is found to exist, the medical board or medical appeal tribunal, in assessing the disablement, has to take account of the disabling effects of chronic bronchitis to the extent that they are due to or made worse by the presence of pneumoconiosis.

May we take it that that answer means that where chronic bronchitis accompanies pneumoconiosis and is thought by the tribunal to be due to it, an assessment for it is added to the assessment for pneumoconiosis?

As my original answer, which I am afraid was long and complicated, makes clear when read, if the bronchitis is the result of pneumoconiosis, it is taken into account in assessing the disability.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that severe loss of faculty due to emphysema is at times noted in workers exposed to the inhalation of irritating dust and that in these cases the radiological signs may be negligible; and what methods are used to assess the loss of faculty in these cases;

Emphysema is common among older people and its effects are sometimes severe. In cases where they result from a disease prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act, the medical board or medical appeal tribunal has always made allowance for them in its assessments, but there are no statistics of such cases. If there is no prescribed occupational disease, no question arises of an assessment in respect of emphysema.

Is the Minister aware that in South Africa, for example, emphysema alone, with no radiological evidence of pneumoconiosis, amongst workers who are subjected to irritating dust, such as quartz dust, is accepted as disabling and due to the occupation? Has he noticed that in some cases where the medical boards assess emphysema as existing with pneumoconiosis, sometimes a monetary allowance is added and sometimes not? Could he explain this difference in attitudes towards different cases?

I certainly cannot comment, particularly without notice, on South African legislation, but I think it is clear that, in the present light of medical knowledge, emphysema does not come within the definition contained in Section 55 of the Industrial Injuries Act.

The Minister said, "In the present light of medical knowledge." As it is nearly 20 years since the present criteria of pneumoconiosis were arrived at, after full investigation by the Medical Research Council, in view of all the investigations which have taken place since, including that of the pneumoconiosis unit of the hospital in Cardiff, does not the Minister think that the time has come for another review, since conflicting decisions are given, particularly by coroners' courts and medical boards, and the whole situation is confusing? Will he consider setting up, through the Medical Research Council or in some other way, a competent body to review this matter?

The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Medical Research Council is at present conducting research on respiratory disability, including emphysema, among older men.

Will the Medical Research Council be empowered to consider whether the present definition is adequate to meet existing circumstances, and, if it is not, will it be empowered to make recommendations for a change?

I very much doubt, without notice, whether such recommendations would be within the remit of the Medical Research Council, which is engaged in an examination of the disability itself. When we get its Report, then will be the stage for considering whether the sort of action the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is appropriate.

In view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I will raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of deaths of war disablement pensioners from 1945 until the nearest convenient date, and also separate the figures of those whose pensions derived from the South African, 1914–18, 1939–45 and subsequent wars.

From 1st January, 1945, to 31st March, 1956, the total number of deaths of war disablement pensioners was 164,000. 122,000 were pensioners of the 1914–18 and earlier wars and 42,000 of the 1939–45 war and of later years. I am afraid that no further sub-division of the figures is available.

In view of the substantial figures, which will no doubt show a rapid increase in the next few years, does my right hon. Friend not consider that the time has now come to give immediate consideration to the British Legion's claim for an increase in the basic rate before it is too late?

That raises issues very much wider than those in the original Question.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is prepared to consider extending the period in which family allowances may be drawn from the present six months to twelve months to correspond with the period for which the book is issued and so avoid hardships where parents endeavour to save allowances over a period and then find some are out of date.

I do not think that a limit of six months is unreasonable for the cashing of a weekly order intended mainly to help with current family maintenance. But I will gladly consider any difficulties which my hon. Friend may feel have arisen.

Does my hon. Friend not consider that more publicity should be given to this six months' period as busy "captive Mums" have neither the time nor the inclination to read instructions? I know of one who has lost £28 16s., and I should like to know what happens to the "Mums" missed money.

Notice is given not only on the book itself, but on the individual order. I doubt whether it is really possible to make it clearer than that, but I will gladly consider any suggestion.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what financial advantage accrues to a pensioner who retires at 70 years of age for his five extra years at work and for the contributions paid by him for that period if he receives National Assistance, compared with his position had he retired at 65 years of age.

Apart from five extra years of earnings, a pensioner such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind will have increased his own retirement pension by 15s. a week, and if he has a wife will also have increased her pension by 10s. a week, and by 15s. a week if and when he leaves her a widow. As a result, in general, he will not need to resort to National Assistance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his Answer means that, after a pensioner has worked for five years, he gets no advantage whatsoever and is at a decided disadvantage in respect of National Assistance as compared with what his position would have been had he ceased work at 65? In view of the fact that the pensioner pays a contribution of about £87 in the five years he is at work and saves the Fund £845 by Hot drawing on it, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether some portion of his pension may be disregarded?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the figures to which the retirement pension is raised are, in general, above the Assistance scales and, therefore, the deduction which the hon. and learned Member draws from the figures is not sound. The difficulty about disregards is that the more one increases National Assistance disregards, the more one runs the risk of concentrating relief where, ex hypothesi, it is least needed.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what figure the Industrial Injuries Benefit of 67s. 6d. and the Married Retirement Pension of 65s. would require to be raised to compensate for the rise in the cost of living since these sums were first fixed in December, 1954.

On the basis of the Retail Prices Index, to 72s. 11d. and to 70s. 3d., respectively.

Does the Minister realise that that means a serious drop since the last increase was made for millions of poor people living in the greatest poverty? Can he not say, taking all these things into consideration, that the time has now arrived when something should be done to help these poor old pensioners who are living in such dire circumstances.

The hon. Member will, of course, be aware of the fact that the figures turn entirely on the year selected as a base for the calculations. As he probably knows, quite different results can be obtained if other years, such as 1950 or 1951, are taken.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to the abolition of the tobacco token scheme and a corresponding increase in retirement pensions.

I cannot add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 4th June.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Financ Secretary to the Treasury has condemned this scheme in extremely strong terms and that therefore there can hardly be a more appropriate moment for having consultation of this kind?

It is always a pleasure to have consultation with my right hon. Friend on this or, indeed, any subject, but, as I said, the rates of retirement benefit and other benefits turn on many more factors than the tobacco token.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many small surface mines exist in the United Kingdom; and what is the average annual production of coal from such mines.

There are about 500 licensed small mines producing together about 2 million tons of coal a year.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to include those who work in small surface mines in all schemes of welfare and superannuation promoted by the Board.

No, Sir. The men employed at small mines licensed by the National Coal Board already benefit from the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, and there are arrangements under which small mine licensees can arrange for their workers to participate in the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, the application of those arrangements to a particular mine being a matter for negotiation between the employers and workers concerned.

As the workers in the small mines make a valuable contribution to coal production, would it not be an advantage to put their conditions on a basis entirely equal to that of the workers in deep mines? If the N.C.B. would take the initiative, would it not be possible to extend a uniform basis of the welfare and superannuation conditions introduced for mine workers in the deep mines to the small mine workers?

Workers in the small mines are already to a great extent on the same basis as miners employed by the National Coal Board. That is due to the fact that, for most of the small mines, there are attached to the licence conditions to the effect that conditions relating to wages and hours of work and so on agreed between the National Coal Board and its employees shall be observed.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in one instance, there is a very great difference? Is he aware that ex-miners who have spent most of their working lives in the mines and, perhaps, the last few in a licensed mine do not get concessionary coal when they have to stop work, whereas those who spend all their time working for the N.C.B. do get it in the last few years? Is he aware that that makes a very great difference to a man living on the old-age pension?

That is a separate question of which I should wish to have notice.

asked the Minister of Supply which of the guided missiles, now designed and constructed in the United States of America, it is proposed to arrange to produce in this country; and when application to that end will be made to the Government of the United States of America.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his Question on 27th June, to which I have nothing to add.

That was completely unsatisfactory, which is why I put down the Question again. Can the Minister say whether his intention is to endeavour to rationalise on these matters as between the N.A.T.O. Powers, and particularly as between ourselves and the United States, instead of wasting our manpower doing what has already been done across the ocean?

I keep that point very much in mind. It is not quite so easy as it sometimes seems to manufacture in this country something designed in America. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if ever an opportunity presents itself where it is of practical value to make over here an American weapon, we shall not be deterred by what the Americans call a "not-invented-here" complex.

asked the Minister of Supply how far it is the policy of his Department, with regard to guided missiles, to compete with our Allies or to pool designs and resources as far as possible with all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, especially with the United States of America.

As regards co-operation with the United States, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to his Question on 3rd May last. So far as other N.A.T.O. countries are concerned, it is our policy to co-operate as far as we can, and arrangements have been made this year to provide in the United Kingdom courses of instruction in the basic principles of guided weapon design and operation for scientists from other N.A.T.O. countries.

Is the Minister not aware that arrangements with the United States of America have recently been made so that what is called enriched uranium can be made available both to us and other European countries? As the next step to a warhead is not insuperably great, can he not give us a more positive assurance that something will be done to persuade the United States to be more co-operative in this matter?

This is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred before. I appreciate his interest in the matter, which is very important, as he says.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now announce the name of the Chairman of the Sugar Board.

At the invitation of my right hon. Friend, Sir George Dunnett, K.B.E., C.B., a Deputy Secretary in my Department, has accepted the chairmanship of the Sugar Board. He will leave the service of the Department when he assumes his new duties as Chairman of the Board.

Can my hon. Friend say when Sir George Dunnett will assume his duties, and also when the appointed day will be?

It is expected that Sir George will assume his new duties at the end of the summer, and I think my right hon. Friend will be able to make an announcement about the appointed day in the early autumn.

While completely endorsing this appointment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—may I ask if my hon. Friend can say whether this distinguished civil servant will be in receipt of a full civil servant's pension in addition to the salary and emoluments he receives as Chairman of the Sugar Board?

He will be on what is known as the approved employment terms, which means that he will sever his connection with the Civil Service, but will carry with him the pension rights he has up to the date when he leaves the Civil Service.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the Potato Marketing Board, under prescriptive Resolution No. 4 of 1956, is levying on each registered producer a sum equal to 20s. per acre of potatoes planted for harvesting in 1956; and why he approved this levy.

The Potato Marketing Board has power under Section 84 of the Potato Marketing Scheme to determine the contributions to be made by registered producers to the Board. My right hon. Friend's approval is not required.

Does the Minister realise that this levy will bring in nearly £750,000, which will be sufficient to pay the growers' share of a subsidy of nearly £14 million? In view of the fact that the acreage this year is roughly the same as it was last year, when there was a shortage of potatoes, does the hon. Gentleman think there is likely to be much subsidy needed? If not, will he have a word with the Potato Marketing Board on the question of keeping £750,000 of growers' money doing nothing?

This levy is raised primarily to pay for the administrative expenses of the Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government propose to publish the White Paper giving their views on the Report of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission on their Mid-Wales Investigation.

A White Paper is being published today.

Will there be a debate on the White Paper before the Summer Recess?

I do not think so. I should expect that in any event right hon. and hon. Members would like to read the White Paper first.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will bring the allowance of welfare milk in day nurseries into line with that which will be available in future in nursery schools.

Yes, Sir. The allowance of welfare milk in day nurseries will be ⅓ pint per child daily from the 1st September next.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether this milk will be free and if it will be in addition to the cheap milk allowed to the mother?

It will be free and in addition to the cheap milk.

asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the published announcement by the Secretary of the Maternity Services Committee that only written representations will be accepted, he will issue instructions to the committee that it shall receive oral evidence and interview any persons wishing to give such evidence.

I understand that the Committee will ask for oral evidence after examining the written material submitted to them: but this is a matter entirely within the Committee's discretion.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if he is aware that the published statement which appeared in the Press gave the impression that the Committee was not preparing to receive oral evidence at all and that greatly distressed a large number of nursing midwives who felt that they were being overlooked? May I say how glad they will feel that the Committee has reconsidered its decision?

I am sorry that that impression got about. It is, in fact, the normal practice of all committees to wish to see a written statement before inviting oral evidence and, in the announcement mentioned, it was therefore not exceptional in this case.

asked the Minister of Health on what grounds he refuses to disclose the increases in doctors' pay asked for by the British Medical Association.

Because, so far, there has been no claim published by the profession. The communication on this subject has been only in the form of a preliminary memorandum sent to my Department and to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. To this a reply has now been sent stating that, in present circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I would not feel justified in giving consideration to any claim for a general increase in medical remuneration.

Before we can decide whether that reply was justified or not, can we not be told what the doctors asked for? Why all this secrecy? If trade unionists want something the whole world knows about it; why cannot we be told what the doctors want?

There has been no claim published by the profession. As I said last week, I must act in accordance with what I believe is the proper procedure in this matter and not anticipate publication when I have received what is in fact only a draft memorandum.

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

asked the Minister of Health, in view of the independent medical examination of Mrs. Harriet Thornton, who has been detained in a mental home for the past three years, if he can yet state when she is to be discharged.

The result of the medical examination has not yet been reported to the Board of Control.

Since Mrs. Thornton has been examined on two different occasions by two doctors, how long is it anticipated it will be before a decision is reached when the result of that examination can be taken to the Board of Control, because this lady is getting very anxious?

That is a matter for the Board of Control. The Board of Control may order a patient to be discharged at the expiration of ten days from the date of authorisation of the independent medical examination. That ten days had already elapsed on 9th July, and, therefore, it will be at the discretion of the Board to order a discharge after receiving the result of the examination; but it is entirely in the discretion of the Board.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point of order arising out of this Question and a Question on 2nd July when, in a supplementary question, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) referred to

"a cruel husband"

"to get rid of an unwanted wife. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 987.]

Order. I could not allow that now. This is a matter of fact; it is not a point of order at all.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the annual cost of advertisements for porters, nurses and domestic staff, respectively, in the hospital service.

I regret it is not possible to give separate figures.

Does the hon. Lady realise what difficulties local hospitals have, especially in the Greater London area, in getting and keeping staff, particularly porters and domestic staff? Although she cannot give the figures, does she realise that a vast amount is spent on advertising and that if only wages were comparable with what can be obtained in ordinary industry, all that would be saved and much better staff would be obtained in the hospitals under her control?

I appreciate that quite a considerable sum is spent on advertising, but I think the hon. Member is a little optimistic if he thinks we should get over what is a very real staff shortage, particularly in the southern and London areas, by his proposal.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the concern arising from the issuing of Circular No. 307; and, in view of the need for encouraging further education, if he will give consideration to withdrawing the circular.

My right hon. Friend is encouraging further education, but he thinks it reasonable that students aged 21 or over should pay at least 10s. a term towards the cost of providing a part-time day or evening class. He does not therefore intend to withdraw the circular.

Is the Minister saying that the country's finances are in such a horrible mess after five years of Tory rule that the Government have to charge extra for further education? This is trifling in comparison with the finances of the nation, but it can mean so much to individuals. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Kent Education Committee estimates that 10 per cent. of the students will drop out because of what has happened? Will he explain why the Minister gave education authorities such short notice that many of them have to call special meetings?

The hon. Member may not be clear that this circular refers almost entirely to non-vocational classes. I do not think it is unreasonable that a fee of 10s. a term, or approximately 10d. a week, should be charged for non-vocational courses. I regret the short notice, but my right hon. Friend is willing to consider cases where that is causing difficulty.

Why was there short notice?

Can the hon. Gentleman say not only that he regrets the short notice but whether there is any justification for it? Also, if he wants to hide behind the fact that this relates mainly to non-vocational courses, may I ask whether he remembers that his right hon. Friend gave me an answer recently when he said that he was making plans for the purpose of encouraging liberal education?

In answer to the second part of the Question, I repeat that 10s. a term should not discourage liberal education. The reason for the short notice is that it was necessary to get out this circular for the autumn term. Had it been delayed longer, it would have been necessary to wait a further year.

Would my hon. Friend put this matter into its correct perspective and say what one of these courses costs and, therefore, how much is borne by public funds, being the difference between 10s. and the actual cost of the course? Secondly, would my hon. Friend not agree that the former charge of only 5s. per term was grossly inadequate and unrelated to present monetary values?

The only information I can give to my hon. Friend is that, in the circular, it was stated that the cost of further education to local authorities was about £32 million a year, of which fees represented only £2·5 million.

If the Government are trying to induce industry not to raise prices, why is the Ministry of Education, as a Government Department, itself raising prices? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that to young workers even 5s. is a considerable sum which has its effect when trade unions come to negotiate wage claims?

The hon. Member speaks of young workers, but this circular refers to workers over the age of 21, and these fees represent only a very small proportion of the total cost of providing the courses.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the many educational settlements affiliated to the Educational Centres Association are gravely disturbed that work of great social importance may be brought to an end by the deterrent that this increase is likely to have?

My right hon. Friend is discussing this matter this afternoon with the L.C.C. He has also said that hardship may be taken into account for remission of fees.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council, to whom he has referred, regards this circular with consternation? Is he further aware that the L.C.C. regards it as a great blow to the cause of liberal education, which it has been building up over many years for the working men and women in the Metropolis? In view of the protests that this circular has received all over the country, will not the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?

My right hon. Friend is giving the London County Council an opportunity to put that point of view this afternoon. I have no doubt that he will take into account its views as well as those of the hon. Member.

Do not the questions from hon. Members opposite reflect an entire lack of any sense of proportion?

Is the Minister aware that most of these classes in London are attended, in their spare time, by men and women who are trying to extend their educational background, and that the effect of this circular over the course of a year is to raise the cost by 200 per cent.? In view of that fact, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that the Minister should have another look at the matter and withdraw this circular until later on?

In the first place, the fees in London are considerably below the level for the rest of the country. In the second place, the hon. Member may not have observed in the circular that, where the increase will more than double the fees, it can be made over a period of two years.

Is the Minister not aware that the indecent haste with which these extra charges are being imposed casts grave doubt everywhere among education authorities of the Minister's sincerity in claiming to be in favour of further education? Is the hon. Gentleman not further aware that these classes are of especial value to the lowest paid workers and pensioners, and folk of that kind, to whom every increase in the cost of living comes? As the Minister is, therefore, contributing to putting the squeeze on the lowest paid workers, who get the greater value from this kind of education, will he not reconsider the statements he has made about the policy of further education?

I do not dispute that these courses are of value to the lowest paid worker. If, in fact, the lowest paid workers cannot pay the free of 10s. a term on the grounds of hardship, remission can be made.

In view of the agitation which this matter has raised among the Opposition, is not this a suitable subject for them to give up a Supply Day in order to have a rather fuller debate?

This really is becoming a debate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations took place with the Governments of tobacco-growing Commonwealth countries before the agreement with the United States of America of 5th June, 1956, was concluded.

The Government have been in consultation throughout the negotiations with the Governments of the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in fact, this is going to damage the tobacco output from Southern Rhodesia or any other Colonial territory in any way whatever?

The Commonwealth countries concerned raised the same point, but we were able to give them an assurance.