asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average farm rent per acre now; and what it was three years ago.

There are no statistics of rents paid on all farms in the country. The average rent per acre on a sample of tenanted farms in England and Wales was 30s. 3d. in 1953–54 as compared with 34s. 6d. for a similar sample in 1956–57.

Can my hon. Friend say how these variations compare with those in farming income, on the one hand, and the cost of repairs and maintenance on the other?

I could not tell my hon. Friend that without notice. I should be very glad to look into it if he would wish me to.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings were to let in each of the last three years.

My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for sons of farmers to find farms to rent and that this is a most unfortunate thing?

Yes, indeed, and it is to that end that I hope the new Agriculture Bill which we discussed the other day will have some effect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the total number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales has varied in each of the last three years; and if he will state the main reasons.

The total number of agricultural holdings fell by 5,800, or 1½ per cent., between June, 1954, and June, 1955; by 4,600, or 1¼ per cent., in 1955–56; and by 3,000, or under 1 per cent., in 1956–57. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to give reasons for the changes that occur from year to year.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication how far this is due to larger units and the amalgamation of holdings?

I am afraid that we have no evidence on that point. In fact, the figures have not been uniform in the way they have fallen over the last few years, but there was a rise in the years preceding that period, so it is somewhat difficult to draw any close analogy from this.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has reduced the estimate for capital expenditure of the Gwynedd River Board for 1958–59 from £78,000 to £36,000; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees of the Gwynedd River Board will be made redundant by the reduction of the estimate for the Board's capital expenditure for 1958–59 in Caernarvonshire, Anglesey, and Merioneth, respectively.

In view of the national economic situation, it has been necessary to ask drainage authorities, in common with other local authorities, to accept reductions in their programmes of capital expenditure. For a programme of land drainage improvement works in 1958–59 estimated at £63,000, the Gwynedd River Board was offered a provisional allocation of not less than £36,000 and, more recently, a definite allocation of £42,000.

Is the Minister aware that this big reduction will have far-reaching consequences on the countryside? Is he further aware, for example, that it is calculated that in Anglesey alone, where already there is a very high incidence of unemployment, thirty men will lose their employment as a result of this cut? Is it not the case that out of this £36,000 which the Minister has given to this area, £24,000 is to be spent in Merionethshire, leaving £12,000 only for Anglesey and Caernarvon? Does this not make a complete mockery of the Minister's promise to improve agricultural drainage in the country?

With respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has this quite correct. The actual firm allocation which I have mentioned is £42,000. The expenditure last year was £49,000, so the cut, if any, is very much smaller than the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Of course, if there are any special circumstances which come to light, we shall be glad to look into them. We have as yet no evidence of any definite, and certainly of no immediate, cut in employment by the board.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is quite impossible to farm really efficiently if the land is badly drained? What is the point of giving more fertilisers to farmers if the land is not properly drained?

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the need for drainage. We are doing all we can, but there has been a credit squeeze, of which the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, and we are asking all river boards to keep down expenditure to the minimum necessary at the moment. We certainly want to increase expenditure again as soon as we can.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is an area which is burdened with a very high rate of unemployment, and that the employment aspect mentioned by my hon. Friend ought to be borne in mind?

Yes, of course, but I have no knowledge of any immediate sackings of staff at all, and as far as I am aware that is not intended.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce measures to help small and marginal farmers.

I cannot forecast exactly when an announcement will be made, but it is my intention that details of the new measures that I have in mind will be worked out, in consultation with the interests concerned, in time to be introduced as part of the determinations after the 1959 Annual Review.

Does the Minister hold out no hope that they will be brought into force before that date? Does he realise that it is very difficult for small farmers to change their methods in the way in which he asked them to change in the last Price Review, and can he say if there is any hope of being able to assist them with cheaper credit or in any other way?

I think the House would agree that it would be unwise to rush into a scheme of this sort, which is a fairly new concept. I want to consult in great detail with the National Farmers' Union and other bodies to be quite certain that I have got the right answer.

Will not my right hon. Friend, before he comes to a final decision, give the most careful thought to the Liberal Party's policy to help the small and marginal farmers?

I am always interested in studying any constructive suggestions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now make it transparently clear to those who obviously have misunderstood him that, whatever scheme is worked out, it cannot operate until after March, 1959?

I have made that abundantly clear in any statements I have made, both to the Press and in the House, and I think that this Question will draw further attention to that fact.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his definition of a small farm; and upon what basis he intends to make his grants to small farmers.

In England and Wales, we are thinking generally of farms in the range of about 30 to about 100 acres. We have in mind, within such an acreage range, a minimum limit of earning capacity so as to ensure that the holding can be made economic. We also have in mind a maximum limit of earning capacity which might be related to the amount of employment given on the holding. For example, the farmer with, perhaps under certain conditions, one other man working for him. We are thinking of grants related to schemes for improvement and better use of grassland, and we shall try to make the grant system as simple as possible, for example, on an acreage basis. The precise definition of those eligible and the basis for grants are, of course, matters on which we shall be consulting the interests concerned.

Is it the Minister's view that below a certain acreage a small farm is not viable? Is it his policy in the future to give selective assistance with, perhaps, better planning or cheaper money? Does he favour, as he did last year, squeezing out the smaller farms below a certain minimum size to make what he called "more efficient units" by amalgamation?

It is difficult to generalise, and that is why I am going into great detail on this matter. For instance, a small acreage on first-class land may make a more viable farming unit than a far larger acreage on very moderate land. It is exactly because of the complexity of these questions that I am absolutely determined to go into every detail before the final plan is published.

While appreciating that it will take time to work out the details of my right hon. Friend's plan, may I ask whether he will, nevertheless, consider giving the farmer some broad guidance by the end of September, so that the farmer can plan ahead for next year? It is vital that the farmers should have it.

I will certainly listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) says. I must repeat to the House that I do not want to be stampeded into a plan which will not work. I must ask for the indulgence of the House, therefore, to let me work this out in proper detail.

Can the Minister tell the House the number of farms below 30 acres?

I could not, offhand. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have that figure. I will see that it is sent to him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that food import prices have fallen from 101 in 1957 to 93 in February, 1958, which foods have shown the biggest drop in retail prices; and by how much.

From trade quotations available to me, the biggest reductions in retail prices over the last twelve months, resulting from lower import costs, have been between 9d. and 1s. per lb. for cheese, about 8d. per lb. for tea and about 1½d. per lb. for sugar.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the reduction in prices which farmers are getting for some of their products has been adequately represented in retail prices in the shops?

I am giving constant attention to this, but I think that hon. Members might bear in mind the fact that wage rates have risen over 5 per cent. during the last twelve months, and the cost of fuel for industry has also risen in price by about 6 per cent. There are additional costs, such as transport, all of which have to be taken into account when we are considering distribution costs.

How does the Minister explain the fact that over the year import prices for food have gone down, retail prices have gone up, and yet the subsidies have increased?

No, that is not true. I think the fact that retail prices have not gone down is chiefly because of the high cost of certain things, such as potatoes, because of a shortage, and also of certain horticultural products.

Would not the Minister agree with my right hon. Friend that over the year the Interim Index of Retail Food Prices has gone up, although import prices have fallen recently?

It is important to get this matter clear. The hon. Member's Question related to food and not to retail prices in general.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern felt in the British trawling industry at the proposals to extend the territorial water limit to twelve miles; and, since such a proposal would bring ruin to the British fishing industry, if he will now make a further statement on the discussions that have taken place so far at Geneva.

I am fully aware of the views of the British trawling industry on the question of the breadth of the territorial sea, and I have much sympathy with them. The Conference will not end until 24th April, and at the present time I cannot add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishermen and the trawler owners will want a great deal more than sympathy from him? Is he also aware that what they fear is that if the 12-mile limit is enforced the fishing industry will be utterly bankrupt, and will he do his utmost to resist this proposal?

I can assure my hon. Friend that my sympathy will be translated into as practical action as possible, but I hope that he has read the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at Geneva quite recently, in which the attitude of Her Majesty's Government was very clearly explained.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price and quantity of milk referred to in paragraph 17 Command Paper No. 390, relating to the need to discourage the highest cost production; what are the highest and lowest production costs per gallon; and at what cost is the bulk of English milk produced.

The Government do not regard it as practicable or desirable to try to set precise commodity production targets in free market conditions, but it is clearly desirable in present circumstances to reduce production of milk and to do so by eliminating the highest cost output.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have now been made to Argentina pressing for more effective precautions to prevent foot-and-mouth disease reaching Great Britain in chilled and frozen meat; and if more satisfactory undertakings for the future have now been given.

I am glad to have this opportunity of assuring my hon. Friend that the remarks I made in the House on 5th March have been drawn to the attention of the Argentine Government. I made it clear then what very great importance I attach to this matter, and I am sure that the Argentine Government are as anxious as we are ourselves to maintain steady progress toward the effective control of the disease. Through my veterinary officers stationed in Buenos Aires, we are in constant touch with the Argentine authorities on precautions designed to prevent infected carcases reaching Great Britain.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that the action which has at last been taken will be very warmly and widely welcomed, and will he keep the House informed of the progress he is able to make in seeing that these precautions against bringing in foot-and-mouth disease through South American meat are made more effective with the co-operation of the Argentine authorities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I place great importance on this matter, and I will certainly keep the House informed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that, as is already the case with Ulster and Scotland, there shall be separate Welsh representatives in future Annual Price Reviews distinct from English representatives; and if he will make a statement.

I agree that the interests of agricultural producers in Wales should be adequately represented. I think the present arrangements achieve that end.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in recent years, the Welsh Department of his Ministry has been very largely decentralised and made autonomous? Does not that indicate that agriculture in Wales has many particular and peculiar problems for consideration, and would he not consider it proper that the desire of many people in Wales to have reasonable representation in cases of this kind should now be met?

I assure my hon. Friend that I do pay the greatest possible attention to the position of farmers in Wales, and I assure him that I shall continue to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on horticulture.

As I have told the House, I am anxious to make a statement at the earliest possible moment on the principal recommendations of the Runciman Report, I regret that, owing to the complexity of these matters, and the need to take account of the views of a very large number of interested parties, I shall not be in a position to do so until after the Easter Recess. There will be no avoidable delay.

Is the Minister aware that I am much obliged to him for his statement, and that we appreciate that he is new to his office and that this is a complicated question? May I ask him if he will regard this as a matter of urgent priority and see that a statement is made as soon as possible, and, if necessary, that legislation is introduced to implement it?

I do not want to repeat myself, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very concerned that a statement should be made as soon as possible. I have a lot of people to talk to—there are twenty-six local authorities to consult as well as traders. I shall try to speed up an announcement to the best of my ability.

In addition to my right hon. Friend's decision about the Runciman Report, may I ask him whether he will give immediate and urgent attention to the very serious problem developing in the tomato section of the industry so far as Spanish imports are concerned?

I am sure that, since you have allowed that question to be in order, Mr. Speaker, it is in order. Certainly. I will listen to what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether figures of the spendable income of farmers are agreed for the purposes of the Annual Price Review negotiations; and if he will publish these figures.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on 21st March, 1958, in which the figures of spendable income from 1947–48 onwards were given. The Farmers' Unions have not challenged the data on which these figures are based or the calculations involved, but there is not agreement on the inferences to be drawn from them.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he said these figures were agreed when we had the debate on the Agriculture Bill but that now the National Farmers' Union has denied that they were agreed, maintaining that real farming income is 8 per cent. lower in 1957 than it was in 1948, despite a rise in output of some 22 per cent.?

I have seen the announcement that was put out by the National Farmers' Union. I certainly had no intention of misleading the House. I understood that these figures were agreed, but we can all draw such inferences as we choose from any such figures. I am aware of the suggestion of the N.F.U. that farmers' income is down by that amount, but this depends entirely on the way in which one interprets the figures, and the interpretation which I have given is, I believe, the right one.

Instead of creating doubt and anxiety about the accuracy or what-not of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given, would he not agree that confusion is bound to arise when he is giving a figure and drawing conclusions which are not agreed conclusions, and will he endeavour to supplement the reply he gave on 21st March in order to clarify the whole position on value, as well as on £ notes?

These figures were based on value, not on £ notes. They were real figures in the sense that they relate to 1948 terms. We tried to make it clear as far as possible that they were real figures, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman on that. If he would care to check, I think he will see that that is so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that, according to variety, wholesale prices of potatoes are now from £28 to £38 per ton and retail prices as high as 5½d. per lb.; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there is sufficient importation of potatoes, in augmentation of home supplies, to permit a reduction in prices to the consumer.

Yes, Sir, potato prices have risen steeply during the past three weeks, but the higher prices are attracting increasing quantities of imports which will help the position. Full consultations have been held with representatives of producers' organisations and the distributive trades, and I am satisfied that they will do all they can to supply the needs of the market. I shall welcome imports from all sources of supply which are acceptable under the plant health regulations.

Is the Minister not aware that prices are currently double what they were this time last year and have, indeed, reached the high levels of 1956? Does he not feel that this situation is very bad not only for housewives but, in the long run, for home producers? Can he not, having accepted the advice tendered by the Opposition last year to admit imports, now find other means to supplement the supply of potatoes or, alternatively, find other means of holding prices down?

Last year was a very bad year. Imports are coining in, however, and I am able to give the hon. Member the figures for the last few weeks. In the week ended 8th March, 6,500 tons came in; in the week ended 15th March, 14,900, and 22nd March, 21,200. I think the supply position is adjusting itself.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what puzzles the housewives is that these imports do not seem to have any positive action in reducing prices? Why are we having to pay such scandalously high prices for old potatoes which are now almost as dear as new potatoes?

As the hon. Lady knows, there is a shortage of potatoes here and there was some shortage of potatoes in Europe. It is a fact that the price is up now and is actually attracting the extra supplies that we need.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the prices paid to producers sending eggs to the packing stations in the past three months compare with the prices paid in the same period last year; and to what extent the guaranteed price has been lowered by reason of lower feeding stuff costs and the Exchequer liability for subsidy in both periods.

The minimum prices guaranteed to producers for hen eggs sold through packing stations in the first three months of 1957 averaged 4s. 1¾d. per dozen. The minimum prices which the British Egg Marketing Board has required packers to pay during the first three months of 1958 are expected to average about 3s. 9d. per dozen. The price of 4s. 1¾d. included a feed cost addition of 1½d. per dozen, and the price of 3s. 9d. takes account of a feed cost reduction of about 3½d. per dozen. For the first three months of 1957, the subsidy was approximately £20 million and, for the corresponding period of this year, is estimated at just over £11 million.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain information from the Victoria State Government upon the working of their Act of 1956, dealing with the control and treatment of foot rot in sheep, with a view to the possible introduction of a similar measure for England and Wales.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the legislation in force in Victoria, and of the action taken under it. Control methods in Australia are similar to our own; but, as the hon. Member will have understood from the reply given to him on 13th March, my right hon. Friend does not consider that legislative action is necessary in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the report of the Food Standards Committee on sausages.

Yes, Sir. In May, 1956, the Food Standards Committee reported in favour of statutory minimum standards for sausages, but was unable to agree as to the types of meat to be allowed in sausages described as "pork" or "beef". The majority recommended that the addition of up to 20 per cent. of meat other than the named meat should be permitted, but a minority of the Committee recommended that sausages so described should not be allowed to contain other meat in any proportion.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to look into the matter again if a suitable method of analysis could be found to enable regulations to be enforceable?

If that did happen, a new situation would arise, and I should certainly be willing to consider that situation.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman work out some scheme whereby the purchasers of sausages may know the percentage of meat the sausages contain, whether of pork, beef, cat or whatever it is?

That, indeed, is my difficulty. It is quite impossible, with the scientific knowledge we have available, to ascertain exactly what proportion of what meat there is in a sausage.

Will not the Minister do something to save us from these disappointing sausages?

The sausages we eat today are of quite excellent quality.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why sausages always seem to defeat everybody?

I should be very rash if I tried to answer the hon. Lady. This is a very vexed problem which has troubled many Ministers of Agriculture.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost to the fund if the rule excluding widows under 50 years of age from benefit were abolished; and what would be the cost if the age were reduced to 40 years.

On the basis that the change applied to existing widows, the cost of the first proposal would be of the order of £25 million a year and of the second about £20 million a year.

Is not the principle behind this harsh rule introduced by the Labour Government the fallacious assumption that these women can easily obtain work? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that many widows, because they have children to look after or because they live in non-industrial areas and have never been out to work before, are quite unable to obtain employment and have to live on National Assistance? Would he not refer this matter back to the Advisory Committee, with these considerations in view?

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this matter was carefully considered by the Advisory Committee some eighteen months ago and that it came to the conclusion, and so advised me, that on the statistics put before it the difficulties which my hon. and learned Friend foresees would not arise. He will also know that other provisions, giving a flying start in sickness and unemployment benefit, were introduced at the same time.

In view of the hon. Member's reference to the Labour Party, may I ask the Minister whether it is not true that the provisions eventually adopted in the 1946 Act were more favourable to widows than those in the Coalition Government's White Paper or in the Beveridge Report?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend are both right on different aspects of the matter. The limitation on widows up to a certain age who neither had young children nor were sick was introduced in the right hon. Gentleman's original Bill. The figure referred to in my hon. and learned Friend's Question was introduced in our Bill about eighteen months ago.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost to abolish the earnings limitation on widowed mothers, and to pay widowed mothers' allowances irrespective of earned income, as is done regarding unearned income.

The direct cost would be about £2 million a year.

Why has not the right hon. Gentleman been a little more forthcoming on this subject? Is not this an anomaly which it would be fair to refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee? Is he not aware that it strikes many people as extremely unfair that earned income should be treated differently from unearned income in this connection?

The question of these widowed mothers was, in point of fact, before the National Insurance Advisory Committee some eighteen months ago. So far from not being forthcoming on the matter, the hon. Lady has put down a Question and I have answered it.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer this supplementary question or whether he would prefer notice. One of the facts in the background to the problem has been that before the Second World War private employers and, indeed, some public employers when employing pensioners, including widows, deducted their pensions from the wages paid, which caused a good deal of concern among trade unionists. Does that practice still exist, and if it does, to what extent does it exist?

I should be grateful if, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, he would be good enough to give me notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the estimated cost of abolishing the earnings limitation in assessing the various allowances and pensions of widows, under the National Insurance Act, in order to bring them into the same position as those with an unearned income.

The direct cost would be £6½ million.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of widows over 40 years of age who have ceased, since February, 1957, to be entitled to the widowed mothers' pension before becoming entitled to widow's pension at the age of 50 years; and what steps he has taken, or will take, to ascertain by factual evidence whether such widows are suffering hardship.

Up to the end of December, about 450. The change in this age limit for widow's pension was accompanied by arrangements designed to avoid hardship under which widows who find themselves unable to work after their widowed mother's allowance ends can qualify as appropriate for sickness or unemployment benefit at the same rate as a widow's pension. Further, as part of the same arrangements, a widowed mother's allowance is now paid in all cases so long as the widow has a child under 18 living at home. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the National Insurance Advisory Committee gave very careful consideration to this recommendation, and I have no information which leads me to doubt the soundness of its view that this provision would not cause hardship. I will continue to watch the position closely.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion of the Committee was purely theoretical at the time, and would it not now be worth having a factual inquiry to see whether that opinion has been justified or not?

It is not fair to say that the opinion was theoretical. A considerable volume of statistics was submitted to the Committee, which had been obtained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. In fairness to the Committee, I should say that it dealt with the matter in a very practical way.

Is there not some slight misunderstanding in the Question? Can the Minister say whether a widow ever becomes entitled to widow's pension at the age of 50? Is it not part of the unfairness about which complaint is made that if her husband dies before she is 50 she never becomes entitled to a widow's pension?

The point which my hon. Friend has in mind and which is very properly put in the Question is where the eligibility to widowed mothers allowance ends after the age of 50.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the claim of Mr. F. W. Hunter, 40, Lawn Avenue, Great Yarmouth, for his disability to be attributed to war service was accepted in 1948 and this decision reversed in 1953.

The consensus of expert medical opinion is that the disability from which Mr. Hunter is suffering cannot be caused by war service, although in certain circumstances it can be aggravated by it. As I told the hon. Member in my letter of 19th March, the decision of 1948 was wrong. The independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1955 found that the disability was not attributable to service. Mr. Hunter is receiving a pension, assessed at 50 per cent. disability, on grounds of aggravation owing to service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the bias usually shown in favour of the pensioner by his Ministry is such that it makes it all the more difficult to understand this case? I have in mind the picture of a man lying in bed unable even to light a cigarette for himself—a man who gave the best years of his life to this country in war-time. In 1951 this man was receiving treatment allowance which was equivalent to 100 per cent. pension, but in 1953 a reverse decision was given by my hon. Friend's doctors compared with that which his doctors gave in 1948. All I am doing is to appeal to my hon. Friend today to have another look at the case, in spite of his words that the decision is final and binding, in order to see whether it is not possible to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that Mr. Hunter is very severely disabled, but the difference between us is that I am saying that his disability is aggravated by his war service and is not attributable to it. This whole question was before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1955. The Tribunal decided that a mistake had been made in 1948 and that it should he now put right.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and the fact that it is difficult to go back and to reverse a doctors' decision and a Minister's decision, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce a no-claim bonus scheme for National Insurance, whereby an insured person who made no claim in respect of National Insurance or health for a year or longer would be credited with a certain number of stamps in the ensuing year.

No, Sir. While I understand and sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, I do not think that the change he suggests, which could relate only to a comparatively small element in the National Insurance contribution, would, even if feasible, be consistent with the main principles of the National Insurance Scheme.

Does the Minister realise that this is a rather disappointing reply and is not satisfactory because he has given no reasons for this or the cost of it? Does he not think that anything should be done which might reduce the call on the State and that people should be given this encouragement?

I do not think we can separate sickness benefit from the other benefits of the Scheme, such as unemployment benefit. We could not single out sickness benefit for the very special treatment which my hon. Friend suggests. The whole principle of the Scheme is the pooling of the general risks which affect the whole community, not the singling out of a particular risk to which a particular section may or may not be liable.

As the suggestion embodied in the Question has been raised in other quarters, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that if he entertained such a suggestion it would deter the poorest in the country from seeking medical advice?

That may be so, but the right hon. Lady heard the answer which I gave, to which I do not think it is necessary to add.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will amend his regulations so as to avoid the payment of family allowances and maternity benefits to members of United States forces in this country who receive such benefits from their country of origin.

No, Sir. But I understand that the United States Third Air Force authorities do what they can to discourage those United States Service men who stay here long enough to qualify for family allowances from claiming them. So far as maternity benefits are concerned, no question of such a claim arises as these are National Insurance benefits, and members of the United States forces do not pay National Insurance contributions.

Will my right hon. Friend take the matter of family allowances further with the United States Air Force, because there is some anxiety and doubt in the minds of some of my constituents as to the rightness of families of American Service men being able to draw family allowances from the British taxpayer?

I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has been in touch with the United States authorities in the last few days with a view to seeing whether some reinforcement can be provided of the discouragement which my main answer indicated is given to their men to claim these allowances.

Does not the Minister think it wise to draw the attention of the public to the fact that many of the women who draw these family allowances are English women married to American men and that these women have often paid taxation in this country before their marriage?

The right hon. Lady is in substance right. I understand that the vast majority of the very limited number of cases which exist relate to wives who were British girls before their marriage. I had a spot check taken in the last few days and, of the five cases in which allowances had been claimed, four were British girls born here, and one came from Bermuda, and it so happened that in three cases the husbands were not in this country.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, with a view to ascertaining the number of United States Service men who are entitled to draw family allowances, he will request the United States authorities to supply details as to the number of married Americans with two or more children who have been resident in Great Britain for three or more years; and further, as a means of ascertaining the actual number of United States Service men drawing family allowances, if he will request the United States Service authorities to collate this information and supply the same to his Department.

No, Sir. The information referred to in the first part of the Question would serve no useful purpose, and I do not think the suggestion contained in the second part of the Question would be appropriate or helpful.

When this matter was raised previously, even this afternoon, the Minister said that he had not the information. Unless he finds out the information, how can he say that there are not many of these cases? How can he say that they are English girls, when, in fact, many of them are American girls who are paying no taxation or making any contribution whatsoever? Surely the best way is for him to find out the facts and to let us know whether there are hundreds or dozens of women drawing these payments.

If the hon. Member will recollect, I did not say that I had no information. I told him that I could not give him the precise figures. The particular method of inquiry which he suggests in his Question does not strike me as at all useful.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many foreign diplomats in London draw family allowances.

I have no information as to the number, if any, who do so.

Is the Minister aware that any diplomat with a family who has been here for three years can start drawing tax-free family allowances which, in the case of British subjects, are liable to tax? Will he follow the precedent of the case of the American Service men, and ask the Foreign Secretary to have a word with the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in London with a view to seeing that those diplomats, if they are drawing any family allowance, desist from that practice.

These matters are regulated by the normal rules governing the Diplomatic Corps in all capitals, and I know of no reason whatever why it should be necessary to take the initiative suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the imminent end of winter, he is yet in a position to announce an approximate date for the ending of coal rationing.

asked the Paymaster-General what increase in coal allocation to householders is proposed for the summer of 1958.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the position of coal stocks compared with this time last year; and to what extent the prospect of removing coal rationing has now improved.

asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the amount of coal in stock, he will now end coal rationing.

asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the fact that the cost of the coal rationing scheme is £1 million per annum, and in view of the abnormal stocks of coal now in hand, if he will now take steps to abolish coal rationing.

asked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the unprecedentedly high stocks of solid fuel, he will immediately remove all restrictions on the sale of coal and coke to industrial and domestic consumers.

My noble Friend is anxious to end rationing as soon as possible, but before he can do so he must be satisfied that adequate supplies of coal suitable for domestic use are available from home sources. At present, stocks of such coal are no higher than last year, even though total stocks of coal of all kinds are much higher. The household allocation to take effect from 1st May, if rationing continues, will be announced shortly. There are no restrictions on coke.

In view of the fact that the National Coal Board has stopped recruiting miners and that there are reports of very large stocks of coal, surely the hon. Gentleman can give an approximate date?

I thought I had made it plain in my Answer that the two things are not really relevant. The large stocks are almost entirely of coal that cannot be burned in domestic use, so the two things have no relation one with the other.

Will my hon. Friend consider and, if thought fit, recommend to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that it would pay the nation to apply the principle of the investment allowance to industry, and even to private persons in their dwellings, so as to encourage the purchase of closed stoves which will burn with great efficiency the fuel which is available in such large quantities?

There are a number of measures being taken along those lines, but I do not think that it would be useful at this time of year to pursue suggestions as to what might or might not be included in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary again equivocate on the ending of rationing? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in the country, particularly among the miners and the officials of the National Coal Board, about the present high stocks of coal? He must be aware that there are 24 million tons of coal and a considerable amount of coke and smokeless fuel in stock. If rationing is continued, will it not intensify the stock muddle?

The hon. Gentleman is, I know, an expert in proving that black is white, but we do not propose to have black derationing of coal to follow the confusion of the white de-rationing of sugar.

Referring to the wording of Question No. 31, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that if he had been in Arbroath last week-end he would have realised that winter was not at an end? There is no domestic coal in the town, so will he see that some is sent there very quickly?

It seems to me that the last two supplementaries rather cancel one another out.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has caused considerable offence inside the House and will do so out of it? Is it not the case that the Parliamentary Secretary could recommend to his right hon. Friend that, whilst the allocations of domestic coal should remain as they are, the rest of the coal supplies should be absolutely free, so that rationing could be done away with if people are prepared to take lower grades of fuel?

There is a certain amount of truth in that, but Her Majesty's Government have already said, and I have stated it myself, that we propose as soon as it is humanly possible to end this last relic of the Socialist rationing system; and we propose to do so when it can be Bona in an orderly fashion, and not before.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that coal that is dumped deteriorates rapidly with the weather and that its value, therefore, is not so high after being dumped as when it was first put down? Furthermore, the cost to the National Coal Board of first putting it down and then picking it up later, after it has deteriorated, would be obviated if he adopted the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

We are talking about domestic coal, and whatever happens to coal when it is put on the ground, it does not grow bigger; and the reason why this coal cannot be burnt in domestic appliances is because it is small.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise his right hon. Friend that a vast amount of what is called small coal is not, as the hon. Gentleman says, at present available for domestic use but could be converted into briquettes and into ovoids which could then be sold for domestic use? Is he aware of that? Incidentally, would it not be desirable for the hon. Gentleman to acquire a little knowledge of his subject before he comments on it?

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is partly correct in what he says. We hope that in due course this small coal will be made into suitable fuel by briquetting. The National Coal Board is, in fact, urgently considering that and actually has plant under development at this moment for that purpose. But what we are considering now is whether we can deration in the next few months, and that particular piece of machinery, and that particular development—which I share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to see carried on—whatever else it does, will not affect the use of these small coals in the next few months, or even in the next year.

Taking the present stocks of domestic coal, has any calculation been made of what the price ranges would be in order to use price rather than administrative rationing to control the distribution of coal; and what are the increases that would be likely?

That would be a very difficult exercise, and I think it is almost impossible to be sure of the result. The National Coal Board is at present in very difficult financial circumstances and cannot afford a further overall loss. Already, in agreement with my noble Friend, it has, as the House knows, made some adjustments in that sense which, I think, have commended themselves to informed opinion all over the country. But, of course, if the Board is not to be a net loser, if it reduces the price of some coal it must put up the price of some other. That, unfortunately, would not be particularly popular, and, indeed, it would probably not be in the public interest.

Whilst recognising that, with increased mechanisation the proportion of small coal to total output is bound to increase and that the remedy is, as the Minister suggests, that there should be briquetting, may I ask if the Board will be given full freedom to invest in building the plant to extend briquetting?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate in that. The National Coal Board is busily engaged—and, I am glad to say, with considerable success—in stopping the fall in the percentage of large coal. As regards the capital investment programme, the White Paper will be published very shortly, and I do not think that this is the occasion for me to enter into that topic.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the stopping of the recruiting of miners to produce large coal and the continuance of the rationing of domestic coal? Is he aware that in Canada the railways use briquettes, whereas I understand that in this country the railways have refused to use them.

Nonsense.

I think that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. As to the National Coal Board's stoppage of certain recruitment, I think that that raises very wide issues which I could not enter into in replying to a supplementary question.

If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deration household coal for the reasons which he has stated, would he be prepared to permit the domestic use of unlimited amounts of categories of coal which are not regarded as household coal and leave the domestic user to determine whether he can usefully use this coal which is in greater supply?

A fundamental change in the rationing system might be very difficult if one is hoping to bring the whole rationing system to an end at a comparatively early date, but I will certainly look into the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps he will put a Question down, or I will write to him on the subject.

asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the end of the winter season and the coal position in this country, if it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to resume coal exports; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Paymaster-General what is the total tonnage of coal exported during the present coal year; and what are his expectations for the next contracting period.

There has been no cessation of coal exports and about 5·1 million tons were exported during the first ten months of the current coal year. It is too early yet to say what level will be achieved in the forthcoming year. Increased quantities are available for export, but overseas demand is at present limited.

In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary states that stocks are available, could he not suggest to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that this country could have an exchange with European countries in return for other goods? Surely there should be some way of exporting this coal in exchange for goods, which would help our balance of payments problem?

I do not think that is a very promising line of development. If the coal is available at a price which consumers on the Continent think is as good as that at which they can get it from anywhere and the quality is as good as they can get at that price, they will buy it without any complicated arrangements of that sort. Part of the trouble is, as other businesses have found in the past, that if one cannot satisfy one's consumers when they want something, one may find that when one wants to sell they have made arrangements to buy elsewhere.

Having mutilated the export trade to such disastrous proportions, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how long it will take for the Government to repair the damage they have done? In view particularly of the low freight rates across the Atlantic, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will take to recover our traditional markets on the Continent?

That question is more typical of the hon. Gentleman's approach to these problems than a credit to his acquaintance with them. In fact, what happened last year and the year before, as anyone who knows anything about the coal trade is aware, is that at that time there was a coal shortage in this country and we could not afford to export a lot unless we could also import a lot at enormous expense to the National Coal Board, which would have had to be made up by increasing the price of coal still further. It is not a question of the Government having destroyed foreign markets. The coal was not there.

asked the Paymaster-General what success has been achieved since the National Coal Board began their research into the production of large coal.

The figures to date resulting from the drive which the Board announced last November are encouraging. While they show that the deterioration in the proportion of large coal has been arrested, a further period will be necessary before the success of this drive can be established.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the mechanisation installations are reacting against the industry? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I can give an instance of a case in which 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal have been lost in the last two weeks owing to the introduction of a certain type of mechanisation?

Without expressing any opinion on that, we cannot conduct the technical affairs of the National Coal Board from this Box. It is a matter for the National Coal Board. If the Board has made a mistake, the hon. Gentleman must inquire there, but I am not prepared to accept that it has made a mistake.

asked the Paymaster-General what proposals he has received from the National Coal Board for his approval of pension schemes for mine workers who retired between 1st January, 1947, and 1st January. 1950; and if he will make a statement.

Proposals have been made to my noble Friend for payment out of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme of pensions to miners who retired before the Scheme came into force on 1st January, 1952, and who, consequently, were never contributors to the Scheme. He has not felt able to give his approval as these proposals would involve departure from the established principle that such pensions should be related to contributions paid by the beneficiary, they would give preferential treatment to the mineworkers and they would have widespread repercussions on other pensions schemes.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the handsome compensation paid to the coal owners, those mine workers who have given a life's work in the industry are due for some compensation, particularly those who have retired during the ownership of the National Coal Board?

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is asking me to agree to a statement that the Socialist Government omitted to protect the rights of miners when they settled the terms of the Nationalisation Act. All I am concerned with is the present position. As I have said in my answer, we must bear in mind that all these pension schemes are inter-related; we cannot consider one without another.

asked the Paymaster-General what steps he is taking to encourage consumers of scarce grades of coal to convert their plant to the use of other grades of coal which are in plentiful supply; and what effect these steps have had up to date.

Use of the smaller sizes of coal is being encouraged directly or indirectly by the Clean Air Act, railway electrification, the Government loan scheme and Income Tax investment allowances, the National Coal Board's pricing policy, and the offering of technical advice. These steps have played a notable part in reducing the inland use of large coal from 53 million tons in 1956 to 49 million tons last year.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, is he satisfied that, although we are making some progress, we are making sufficient progress in this matter? Will he take note of the feeling in all parts of the House that something more ought to be done in this direction?

I do not think we ought ever to be satisfied in this difficult industry, and we are prepared, as I am sure the National Coal Board is prepared, to consider any useful constructive suggestions, but at least it is a comfort to know that some progress is being made.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary, in addition to recommending to his right hon. Friend the need for speeding up the plans of the National Coal Board for the purpose of utilising small coal, also advise him that much of the small coal can be converted into powdered fuel for the purposes of generating electricity and thus making it unnecessary to proceed any further with hydro-electric schemes at great expense?

That, again, is difficult to answer very briefly. For instance, one of the hydro-electric schemes is intimately tied up with one of the proposed nuclear stations—pump storage—and I do not think the National Coal Board or the Electricity Generating Board or the A.E.A. can chop and change too rapidly in their long-term programmes as a result of what may be temporary changes in prices and conditions. All these suggestions are being considered by the technical advisers of these boards and of the Ministry, and, as I say, I think progress is being made.

asked the Paymaster General (1) to what extent he anticipates that the development of nuclear power stations will be more rapid than was formerly anticipated; and what effect this will have upon the nation's need for coal;

The nuclear power programme was recently rephased as part of the general revision of capital investment, so that it now provides for the installation of 5,000–6,000 MW of capacity by the end of 1966. This re-phasing will increase power station consumption of coal by some 3 million tons a year, but no further change in the programme is contemplated at present. As regards capital investment in the coal industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 24th March.

Is it not a fact that it is confidently anticipated by Sir Christopher Hinton, Sir John Cockcroft and Lord Citrine that the capital cost of nuclear power stations will be reduced by something like 40 per cent. and that nuclear power stations will become increasingly efficient? In view of all that has been said this afternoon about the coal industry, surplus coal and stocks of coal, is it not time that the hon. Gentleman considered the whole question, including that of capital investment?

This whole question of energy and capital investment in the different branches of energy production is periodically considered, but one cannot change too frequently settled programmes or one will end with each separate section of the fuel industry either wasting money or not, in effect, producing anything except plans which will have to be altered. It is perfectly true that we do anticipate savings in the capital cost of nuclear stations, but it is not the fact that anything is yet sufficiently certain to warrant a major change in the programme in the immediate future.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the international importance of Question No. 45, plus the fact that the Leader of the House has been here waiting since three o'clock to answer it, would you, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the House asks your permission, grant him the necessary permission to answer it?

I have received no such request.