asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the families in receipt of National Assistance have had their National Assistance reduced to the extent that they have benefited from the recent increase in family allowances; and if he will introduce new regulations to prevent this happening.

It has always been the case that increases of income of this sort are taken into account by the National Assistance Board in assessing need.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Bill increasing family allowances was introduced, one of the reasons advanced was that it would compensate for the increase in the price of bread and milk and that the money was given in the form of family allowances because large families tended to suffer poverty? Is he aware that people on National Assistance are in poverty? Is he not ashamed of this policy of giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

As far as persons on National Assistance are concerned, that is a matter of their receiving the appropriate scales recommended by the National Assistance Board. As for the general policy, of which the hon. Member suggests I should be ashamed, I think these words can help him:

"It has, however, throughout been made clear that…payments under the Family Allowances Act would be in substitution for or would be taken into account in determining the amount of the additions made for children under other schemes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 87.]

Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself inform the House when he introduced the new family allowances that they were designed to help the parents of very large families? Are those families not the ones which most need help throughout the country?

The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. My right hon. Friend was referring to those with large families who were above the National Assistance scales, of whom, as he knows, there are a great many. As for those within the National Assistance limits, it has always been the policy—there is nothing new about it—that this and other sources of income are taken into account by the National Assistance Board in carrying out its statutory duty in assessing need.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he is taking to revise the National Assistance scales in the light of recent and prospective increases in the cost of living.

The National Assistance Act, 1948, puts the initial responsibility for this matter on the National Assistance Board. I am sure that the Board can be relied upon to submit proposals to me whenever it thinks the situation so requires. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that the most recently published figure in the Retail Prices Index shows no increase over the figure for last April.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no intelligent person is now prepared to accept that the Index of Retail Prices really measures the cost of living for these people who are on National Assistance, and will he therefore ask the National Assistance Board to submit its comments on the effect of recent increases in the cost of living, such as the price of bread, on those on National Assistance? Further, is it not a fact that there are bound to be more increases in the cost of living, and would it not be totally unfair to put the high cost of the Government's foreign policy on the people living on National Assistance?

That supplementary question raises a number of issues. In the first place, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when, in reply to an earlier Question, I invited the attention of the House to the fact that the food elements in the Index of Retail Prices, which, as he himself says, are the important ones in this context, have shown a decline since April. So far as the rest of his question is concerned, as I said in my main answer, the National Assistance Board can be relied upon to do the duty imposed upon it by this House.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he intends to take to increase old-age pensions in view of the further rise in the cost-of-living index.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the increased price of bread and milk and increased winter coal prices, what action he intends to take to help old-age pensioners meet these increased prices.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if he is aware that the present high cost of living inflicts great hardships on old-age pensioners; and in view of this, if he will take steps to increase old-age pensions to an extent comparable to the present cost of living;

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to enable pensioners to meet the recently announced increases in the cost of living.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the increased prescription charges, the removal of bread and milk subsidies, higher living costs due to the war in Egypt and the forthcoming rent increases, he will consider raising old-age pensions.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the fact that it is now 18 months since the basic rate of old-age pensioners was increased, and in view of the increased cost of living during that period, if he will take early steps to increase the basic rate of old-age pensions.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 23rd October, to which I have nothing to add, except in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) to invite his attention to the fact that the recently published figures of the retail prices index for mid October, 1956, is the same as for mid-April, 1956.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the latest increase in old-age pensions in April last year, the cost of living has increased steadily and has now risen by 7½ per cent.? In view of the fact that the increase in pensions given over 18 months ago was designed to meet the previous increase in the cost of living, and old-age pensioners are equipped with absolutely nothing to meet this disastrous and steady rise in the cost of living, will he not announce a policy at once?

The hon. Lady knows very well that it was recommended by the Phillips Committee that changes in the rate of retirement benefits should be made fairly infrequently. As for her suggestion that a rise of about 7 per cent. in a period of 18 months is a conclusive reason for an increase in the scales, I am bound to remind her that the late Government waited for five years until the percentage increase in the cost of living was 22 per cent.—and, even then, increased the rate of pension only for some pensioners and to a level less in real value than the present level of the benefits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no use talking about the price index in this connection? Old-age pensioners are able to buy food only, and it is the prices of food that have risen? Is he further aware that the value of the old-age pension is now 3s. less than it was at the time of the last increase? How much longer are the Government to turn a deaf ear to the needs of these poor unfortunate people who are living in semi-starvation? Let the right hon. Gentleman try the pension himself for a month and see if he can live on it?

I agree with the hon. Member in his view that food is the matter on the index which is of major importance to the retirement pensioner. In those circumstances, I am sure he will be glad to know that the food elements in the retail price index, which stood at 106 in April, stood at 101·8 at the last assessment.

Does not the Minister realise that he should take into account, not only the rise in the cost of food and things of that sort, but also the legislation which the Government are bringing in to increase rents, fares and public health services; and that it is utterly wrong, unjust and invidious to increase those things without increasing old-age pensions?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that those matters must be taken into account, as must the other changes in prices. On the price question, what we are clearly concerned with is the general effect on prices. It is quite misleading to pick out particular items.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this spate of questions comes badly from the party opposite who, during the six and half years when it was in power, increased the retirement pensions only once, and that only a few weeks before the General Election? Would he further agree that when hon. Members opposite talk about the price of food, they should remember that the retail price index for food alone rose 32 points while they were in power, and that the only increase which they gave, just before the General Election, was 16 per cent., only about half the amount by which food prices had risen?

I am glad to say that, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, whatever the difficulties at the time, and without under-rating the difficulties of the people concerned, it is a matter of some satisfaction that we have been able to maintain a much better rate of benefit than were right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is the Minister aware that at the moment, old-age pensioners are having a much harder time than any other section of society, and that it is quite impossible for them to eat statistics? What does he intend to do, therefore, in view not only of the increases that have just come about, but of the increases that are to come about as economic repercussions of Suez? At what point does he intend to intervene and give to old-age pensioners their very long overdue increase in pension?

The hon. Gentleman really must not take into account certain elements which may force prices up without considering other elements which will work the other way. As I said in my earlier answer, the right approach—and it is the approach which all Governments have taken in this matter—is to view the effect on prices as a whole, as well as the other elements in the problem, apart from prices, which the Phillips Committee recommended.

Is it not really heartless to old-age pensioners, when they know that the prices of goods which they consume, such as bread, milk and coal, are going up very quickly, to draw their attention to falls in the price of goods which they cannot afford?

In asking that, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my earlier answer, in which I pointed out—and I hope that it gave him pleasure, as I was sure it gave pleasure to the House—that the classes of items which matter most to these people, those on the food index, have shown a decline since April.

Is the Minister aware that, on these December evenings, hundreds of thousands of pensioners, because they have not enough left from their pension to spend on heating, are going to bed at six o'clock in the evening in order to keep warm? Is that the way for men and women to spend the last years of their lives?

Nobody would wish to under-rate the difficulties, not only of the retirement pensioners but of other sections of society whose incomes are fixed and have, therefore, suffered over the years; but it really is no kindness to the people concerned to exaggerate their difficulties. The difficulties are there, and they are real, but the House must take, as it always has taken over the years, a balanced and sensible view of the matter. As I said in an earlier answer, I am carefully watching the movement of prices.

Will not the Minister look into the whole matter again? As is evidenced by the Questions today, there is great feeling on this matter. I have made personal investigations in my own constituency and find that there is great hardship among the old-age pensioners because of the increase in the price of milk and bread. Will he not make an investigation into the whole question?

There is no need for me to make any special investigation. It is a matter which I keep under the closest review all the time.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number and nature of the representations which he has received during the last 12 months drawing his attention to the disparities between the present rate of old-age pensions and the present high cost of living; what replies he has sent; and what steps he intends to take to bridge the gap between the present rate of old-age pensions and the present high cost of living.

I have received a number of representations on the subject of the rate of retirement pensions from organisations and individuals. Some, but not all, of these representations have shown awareness of the fact that the present rates of retirement pension in terms of purchasing power are better than they were during the whole period from 1947 until the increase made by my predecessor in April, 1955. I have generally drawn attention to this aspect of the matter in my replies, while giving an assurance that the value of the pensions and all other relevant matters are being closely watched. On the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given him today.

Does not the Minister's policy as enunciated by him today, in his refusal to increase old-age pensions, show that he has not given to this question and to the representations which were made to him the careful, diligent and exhaustive considerations which he boasted a moment ago he was giving to representations? Will he reconsider the data supplied to him and come to the conclusion that the old-age pensioners should be treated just as well as the landlords in this country?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that anybody in my position would follow this matter closely, carefully and conscientiously. The fact that I have no announcement to make in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman would like me to make it, he must not take as an indication that one has not given and is not giving this matter anxious thought.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the Kilmarnock Unemployment Insurance Appeal Tribunal, after reversing, at its meeting on 17th May, 1956, an original decision made in Carlisle in respect of a former employee of the Carlisle City Council, has refused to supply particulars of the reasons for their decision to the Carlisle City Council.

This is a matter for the Tribunal, which is an independent statutory body set up under the National Insurance Acts.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling of dissatisfaction that there is over this matter in Carlisle, particularly as the Carlisle City Council appears, by this decision, to have been criticised as an employer of labour? Should he agree that that is so, will he convey that fact to the Kilmarnock Appeal Tribunal?

I think that my hon. Friend will have gathered from my earlier Answer that, in this matter, I have no responsibility for the conduct of the Tribunal, which is an independent body set up to deal with matters in dispute between my Department and the citizen; and I should very much hesitate even to appear to interfere with its independence.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what date he received from the hon. Member for Swindon a second communication from the Swindon Old People's Welfare Committee; and on what date he replied.

A long memorandum, signed by the Town Clerk of Swindon, dated 30th August, was forwarded to me by the hon. Gentleman's private secretary with a letter dated 8th October, and was received in my Department on 10th October. It was acknowledged the same day, and I sent a full reply to the hon. Gentleman on 2nd November.

Is the Minister aware that the question of how I look after my constituents' correspondence is a matter with which my constituents themselves will deal, in the same way as anyone else? Is it really a fact that on a question of great public interest, to which he should be paying close attention the whole of the time, he has to take three weeks before giving a reply?

I am quite prepared to justify, when dealing with a long and detailed—as the hon. Member himself described it—memorandum, which called for a certain amount of research, taking three weeks to complete the answer. But, as I have already intimated to him, what I objected to was his insinuation that the period of nine weeks since the signature of that letter was my responsibility when, in truth and in fact, only one-third of the period was my concern.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how long he normally takes to reply to letters from honourable Members.

Letters which I receive from hon. Members are acknowledged at once. The time taken for a further reply, or replies, depends on the amount of work required to obtain any information requested, or to give proper consideration to representations made.

May I ask the Minister if it is not time he stopped being run by his civil servants and showed a little humanity and understanding towards the problems of our old people?

I do not know whether, by that, the hon. Gentleman means that I should not have given careful consideration to the memorandum put forward by that Committee.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that persons in receipt of pensions for less than 40 per cent. disability, who were disabled in the 1914–18 war, have difficulty in finding employment; and if he will grant to them the same increase in their pensions as is now enjoyed by those with a disability greater than 40 per cent.

I am aware that some pensioners of the 1914–18 war, whose average age is now 65, have employment difficulties. The disablement resettlement officers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, with whom my welfare officers work closely, do all they can to help over this. So far as the second part of the Question is concerned, I have no further improvements in war pension provisions to announce in addition to those I announced on 19th November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the arguments which very likely justified the increase to pensioners with more than 40 per cent. disability apply with equal force to those with a lower pensionable disability, for when these people lose their present employment they find it much more difficult to get jobs than do able-bodied persons of the same age? If the Minister cannot do anything in the present circumstances, will he regard this matter as one of priority and, when possible, do something for the lesser disabled persons who are enduring considerable hardship?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a real problem here. So far as his suggestion is concerned, he will appreciate that it is always possible to argue more or less logically for an improvement in any provisions, but I think in this case the right thing was to concentrate what resources were available where the need was plainly greatest, as I think it is in the direction in which they are going.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider reducing the age of eligibility for the war pensioners' ageing allowance in order to give aid and comfort to ageing limbless and other severely disabled men during their lifetime.

No, Sir. The Government considered very carefully the position of all classes of disabled war pensioners before deciding the conditions for the award of this particular allowance.

As many of these men were only 18 to 20 years of age when they lost their limbs and are feeling the effects of carrying artificial limbs for over forty years, particularly artificial limbs requiring harnesses, could not the age be reduced to 60, which would cost only an extra £560,000 a year, and a diminishing charge at that?

No, Sir. As the House will understand, in deciding on this matter I gave very careful thought as to what was the correct age at which this allowance ought to be payable. The House will recall that now the average age of the disabled of the first war is, in fact, 65, and I came to the conclusion that with such resources as were available, as I said a moment ago, it was better to concentrate them where the need seemed most acute of all.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that, as this is an average, obviously there must be some people beneath the age of 65? Would it not be a more equitable system to base it on injuries or disabilities which occurred in the First World War, and thus bring them all in?

No. The ordinary assessment takes account of the degree of injuries. This is an allowance in addition to the existing assessments linked with a certain degree of disability and age.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the numbers of 1939–45 war disabled pensioners who have been medically boarded during the past 12 months, and the numbers of cases in which pension assessments have been increased or reduced.

During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1956, 105,680 pensioners of the 1939–45 war were medically boarded, 4,730 assessments were increased and 26,670 assessments were reduced.

Will the Minister say whether this represents a tightening up in his Department? A figure of 26,000 reduced assessments seems very high compared with 4,000 increased assessments. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine his medical division and ascertain whether it is not being too hardhearted in this matter?

Certainly I give that assurance asked for in the first part of the supplementary. There has been no change in the principle of assessment since the time when the hon. Gentleman was at the same Department. I think what impressed him about the figures and the considerable number of reductions compared with increases can be understood by the fact that his Question relates to men of the 1939–45 war, men in respect of whom, with the aid of modern science, it has, I am glad to say, been possible to secure steady improvements in their medical conditions, and therefore, of course, a decrease in their assessments.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the present complexity of the war pensions provisions, if he will take steps, additional to the issue of a leaflet, to ensure that all war disabled pensioners receive all to which they are properly entitled under those provisions; and whether he will consider the training and appointment of pensions experts to act as war pensioners' friends for those purposes.

I am most anxious that war pensioners should receive everything to which they are entitled and, as the hon. Member knows, a great deal has been done in recent years to secure this. I have in course of preparation leaflets which will set out clearly the various benefits to which war pensioners are entitled, and which I intend to send to each war pensioner. I would be glad to let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of the draft in a few days time. In addition, my officers, and in particular my welfare officers, regard it as their duty to help pensioners over this, and so the functions which the hon. Member has in mind are already performed. Perhaps I might also be allowed to acknowledge the very real help given by hon. Members of this House.

Would the Minister say whether the staff of the welfare department dealing with war pensions has been decreased since the merger, and whether the personal contact between the welfare department and the pensioner is as great as it was two or three years ago?

I can certainly give an assurance on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. On staff numbers, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question down.

Is it not a fact that the Ministry is very often the judge, except when the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal is the judge, and that it is really better in the interests of all that advocacy should be undertaken by some outside body rather than by a body which itself is the judge? Does not the British Legion fulfil a very useful function in this respect?

I gratefully acknowledge the work which the British Legion and other ex-Service organisations do in giving advice in this matter which has resulted in many pensioners securing an improvement in their pensions. But I certainly also regard it as my own Department's duty to help in the same way, and I am glad to say it does it wholeheartedly.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many disabled pensioners of the 1914–18 war will receive no benefit from the improved pensions and allowances coming into effect next February; and how many of these are limbless.

About 57,600 of the 248,000 1914–18 war pensioners will get the new allowance payable at age 65 in February. About 10,000 of the 21,000 limbless pensioners of that war will get this allowance in February; the remaining 11,000 will receive it on reaching the age of 65. There are also a small number of minor amputation cases whose assessments are under 40 per cent. The number of 1914–18 war men who will receive the increased comforts allowance is about 3,200, and the extended comforts allowance 6,800. Rather more than half of both of these will not also be receiving the new allowance.

Is it not rather unsatisfactory that rather more than half of the limbless men of the 1914–18 war are getting nothing extra under the new scales announced? Will not the Minister have another look at the Regulations, because, by a comparatively minor adjustment, he could ensure that at least more than half of these 1914–18 men would get something?

Very nearly half will get it in February when the allowance starts. As I told the House in answer to an earlier Question, the average age of the First World War pensioner is now approximately 65, so a considerable number of the balance will be coming up to 65 and getting the allowance in the fairly early future.

Is it not a fact that it is possible that a man who is 57 years of age today could have been wounded in the First World War? Is the Minister aware that many of us who took part in that war and who are not limbless are feeling the burden of our years; so what must happen in their case? Will he look at the matter again in view of the figures he has given?

I think the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind also that the announcement I made last week included adjustments and improvements in the comforts allowance and its extension, and the comforts allowance, as I know the hon. Gentleman knows, is an allowance designed to help the hardest cases of all ages. I think he ought really to look at all these cases as a whole.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of war widows aged 40 years or over who are not eligible for a rent allowance from his Department; how many of them are receiving National Assistance; and whether he will consider the extension of the rent allowance to all war widows who are unfit to work.

Rent allowance, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is payable only to war widows with children. The number of war widows over 40 years of age who are not eligible for this allowance is 135,000, of whom about 3,000 are in receipt of National Assistance. I do not think that an extension of an allowance, designed to help a widow with children to provide accommodation, to a childless widow who is unable to work, would be the right method of giving help.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has now approved the proposals of the Central Electricity Authority for increasing pensions of all those in the industry, including ex-local authority pensioners, who retired before 1st April, 1952.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on 26th November last.

The Minister is surely aware that this matter has been dragging on for a very long time. Does he not realise that, when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about it last summer, he said that he was awaiting proposals from the Central Electricity Authority and that the moment they came they would receive quick and sympathetic consideration from his Ministry? Is not nearly three weeks sufficient time to consider these matters which have been chewed over for so long?

It may have been chewed over for a long time by the Central Electricity Authority. My consideration begins from the moment of submission, and I will certainly try to give an answer as soon as I can.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consultations he has had with the Chairman and members of the Central Electricity Authority in connection with the proposed legislation for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry; and with what result.

I have had consultations with the Chairman and the two Deputy- Chairmen of the Central Electricity Authority and all the Chairmen of the Area Boards. In formulating the proposals that I have laid before Parliament, full account was taken of their views upon the organisation of the industry.

In view of the fact that many of us in this House are anxious to reach a fair conclusion of the merits or otherwise of this proposed legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making available to the House the views of the Central Electricity Authority and the area boards, particularly as the evidence given by the Central Electricity Authority to the Herbert Committee was not published?

That is a question which I can answer only after consultation with the Central Electricity Authority, but I should like to make it quite clear that the Government, and the Government alone, assume responsibility for the nature of the legislation put forward.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what discussions he has had with the Central Electricity Authority about the possibility of greatly enlarging the present construction programme for nuclear power stations.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent the atomic energy programme as envisaged in the Government White Paper is now out of date; and if he will make a statement.

I am in close touch with the Central Electricity Authority on this matter, and I will inform the House of the outcome as soon as I am able.

In view of the weakness of the country's energy position revealed by the Middle East crisis and the restriction of our oil supplies, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is urgent need for very quick action in this matter?

Yes, Sir: I fully accept that. I have already indicated that I fully accept the need for an enlarged nuclear power programme. As soon as I am able to do so, I will make a statement to the House.

Will the Minister state the cost per kilowatt-hour from the nuclear power station at Calder Hall, in view of the fact that this information is being refused?

That does not arise out of this Question.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps, by price control or otherwise, he is taking to prevent the development of a black market in the sale of petrol, which has already begun.

Persons not normally trading in petrol who acquire supplies for resale are likely to render themselves liable to prosecution under Section 1 of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, which imposes restrictions on the keeping of motor spirit; I have no doubt that those responsible for enforcement will exercise due vigilance. As to price, I have myself received only one report of overcharging by a regular dealer, and I have no reason to believe that this practice is at all widespread or likely to become so.

Is the Minister not aware that the trouble arises from the fact that the rationing scheme which he proposes is regarded as quite inadequate to meet normal purposes, that the basic ration and the supplementary allowance are much too low, and it is on this fear that the black market is now being fostered? Will he look into his scheme again?

If a black market does appear, I have powers to enforce price control. If widespread overcharging occurs, I certainly shall not hesitate to re sort to those powers.

What powers has the Minister got to deal with a customer who offers a garage 7s. 6d. a gallon for petrol? Is he not aware that this is happening already, and could he not possibly look again at the practicability of bringing the basic ration forward to end this system?

The second part of the hon. Lady's Question touches on Questions which appear later on the Order Paper. As to the first part of her Question, I can only repeat that if there is widespread overcharging, then certainly the Government would not hesitate to enforce the powers of price control which they have assumed.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Dolly Varden Garage on the Bag-shot by-pass has been trying to charge motorists 6s. 6d a gallon?

That report has not escaped my notice.

Could we have a more definite expression from the Minister? Does he condemn the practice of garages which are overcharging beyond the normal price? If so, will he introduce price controls?

Naturally, I condemn the practice of overcharging. During the last rationing scheme, there was no need to resort to formal price control. I hope that the good spirit of the garage dealers will again make it unnecessary to resort to price control. But if there is widespread overcharging, certainly price control will be enforced.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in the interests of road safety and to avoid the closing down, possibly permanently, of many motor driving schools, he will ensure that such schools have a fair priority in the allocation of available petrol.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on Monday, 26th November.

Yes, but that reply stated only that driving schools would be entitled to the basic ration and could apply for a supplementary allowance. Would my right hon. Friend indicate what supplementary they can apply for, and say that if they do apply for a supplementary they will not be told that because driving tests have finished there is no more need for driving schools?

It has been said that driving schools will be entitled to a supplementary allowance. I have said also that where livelihood is affected, special consideration will be given to individual cases. In the light of both those statements, I should have thought that driving schools could be reasonably reassured.

Can the Minister say why it has taken four weeks to introduce rationing in this country, whereas France and some other countries have apparently done it in a week or ten days?

Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they are asking me for more and more detailed supplementary allowances. On the other hand, they ask me for a more rapid introduction of the scheme. The two things do not go together. This scheme has taken three weeks to introduce, which is roughly the same as the last rationing scheme, though the number of cars on the roads is larger. As for the difference between this and the French scheme, each country has its own habits and practices, and I am quite sure that, were we in this country to introduce the French scheme, the number of complaints and grievances would be far greater even than it now is.

Does not the Minister think that all hon. Members opposite who supported the Government's policy over Suez should be refused any supplementary allowance?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many Members of Parliament have informed him that it is not their intention to claim their basic petrol ration and to forgo their claim to supplementary ration.

None, Sir.

In furtherance of the admirable supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), may I ask the Minister whether it is true that in the 1922 Committee the Suez rebels have stated—

The Minister is not responsible for the 1922 Committee. Mr. Darling.

Mr. Speaker—

Order.

I am not speaking to hon. Members opposite. If I leave out reference to the 1922 Committee, Mr. Speaker, may I put my supplementary question?

The hon. Member did not leave it out when he asked it.

May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

If the hon. Member will let me hear what it is, and if it is in order.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the Suez rebels are not refusing their supplementary petrol as a protest against the Government's action in Suez?

I do not think that the Minister is responsible for what the hon. Member calls the Suez rebels either.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the order making petrol coupons available from post offices on Thursday, 22nd November, 1956, caused a rush of motorists to the post offices, and made difficulties for the staffs; that this order coincided with the issue of old-age pensions, which normally takes place on a Thursday, necessitating these aged people having to wait for long periods in queues, at personal inconvenience; and whether, on similar occasions, he will cause petrol coupons to be issued on a Monday or other such day which is normally recognised as a day when there is rather less work required on the part of post office staffs.

After it became clear that rationing must be introduced, Thursday, 22nd November, was the earliest possible date on which the issue of basic rations books could start. I regret any inconvenience the arrangements may have caused old-age pensioners, but the heavy responsibilities which fall on Post Office staffs at this time of the year restrict the choice of timetable in dealing with sudden calls such as this to undertake additional agency work. Should a further issue of basic ration books be necessary, my right hon. Friend and I would again do our utmost to meet the convenience of all concerned in deciding the day on which issues should begin.

May I thank the Minister for the sympathetic tone of that reply and ask why it had to be announced on a Thursday at all and why there was the three weeks' notice? Would it not have been possible to do it last Monday, or today? Why was it necessary to give three weeks' notice?

Again, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot both complain of the timing and call for the earliest possible start. It had to be three weeks because the post offices had to issue over 5 million books. The regional officers had to examine individual applications from farmers for petrol for tractors and stationary machines. Without all this, the scheme would have been started with people not knowing where they were, which would have created far more difficulty. It is because of these factors that the scheme was started at the earliest possible date. The fact that it was a Thursday is something which I can only regret.

What prior consultations took place between the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Post Office in regard to the important decision that he took?

I certainly consulted my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who agreed to curtail the time as much as he could and to expedite the introduction of the scheme as much as possible.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the regulations for the basic petrol ration do not treat motor cycles and motor cars on an equal basis; why a motor cycle of 1,000 cubic centimetres capacity does not receive the same allocation as a motor car of similar engine capacity; and if he will amend his regulations to remove this hardship.

A motor cycle can do more miles to the gallon than a motor car of the same cubic capacity, and the basic ration quite rightly takes account of this fact.

Is the Minister not aware that some motor scooters which are on the motor car ration are advertised to do more than 500 miles, whereas those with the motor cycles in question will only get 100 to 150 miles out of their basic allowance of 4½ gallons? Does he not consider that the distinction between different sizes of cars but not between the different sizes of motor cycles smacks of class prejudice, and will he not at least put this matter right?

In the light of that question, it would help tremendously to restrict consumption if people were to substitute motor scooters for motor cars.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the oil situation; what are the prospects for the next few months; and what is the advice he has given to those firms that have supported the Government's recommendation to switch from coal- to oil-burning plant.

As the House knows, the United States Government have authorised the American oil industry to co-ordinate its efforts on an emergency basis to supply oil to Western Europe. I am sure the House will join with me in welcoming this step. Some time must elapse, however, before the full measure of this relief can be felt, and there is no reason to revise the estimate of the net shortfall in Western European oil supplies as of the order of 25 per cent.

Is it still the policy of the Government to give subsidies to firms who introduce oil-burning instead of coal-fired plant? Does the Minister not appreciate that, with regard to petrol, in announcing the scheme so far ahead he has himself invited trouble concerning our limited stocks of petrol?

I do not think that the two parts of the hon. Member's supplementary question are quite related to one another. In answer to the first part, it follows that if for the moment the oil conversion scheme is held up loans will be held up too.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what approach he has made to Pemex of Mexico to explore the possibilities of oil imports to Britain.

The oil companies have already bought some cargoes from Pemex, and they can, I am sure, be relied upon to negotiate promptly with the Mexican oil authorities for the purchase of any further suitable quantities on offer.

Can the Minister give details of the quantities that the oil companies have already purchased and are likely to be able to purchase in the coming year? Does he not agree that, despite the waiving of the anti-trust laws in America, we cannot hope to get clear of our entire responsibilities as far as oil is concerned and we will still be 25 per cent. short, no matter how America helps us this year?

As to the first part of that question, I should require notice before I could give the details. As regards the second part, I agree that, despite the latest statement from Washington, the net shortfall in our oil supplies is likely still to be of the order of 25 per cent.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on oil exploration and current oil production in the United Kingdom.

Prospecting is now being undertaken on a greater scale than ever before and promising discoveries were made last year in the Egmanton area of Nottinghamshire, though it is too early to assess the reserves in this field. Altogether 120 oil prospecting and mining licences have been granted covering over 20,000 square miles. Output for 1956 from the 230 wells now producing is expected to exceed 60,000 tons.

Do I gather from that reply, which I did not hear, that there is little chance of our getting oil out of the ground in this country and that the quantities we might get would be very small? If so, is it not about time that we had a fuel policy which will stop the waste and the burning of raw coal in domestic grates and industrial boilers so that we can extract all the raw materials that we can. including petrol, from coal?

As to the first part of that supplementary question, it is unfortunately the case that the quantities appear to be rather small. As to the second part of the question, I entirely agree that we ought to use our own native fuels as economically as we can. Certainly, as far as I am concerned I would like to do everything I can to that end.