asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the large number of old-age pensioners who are unable to purchase adequate supplies of clothing; and whether, in view of the recession of trade in clothing industries, he will consider the issue of an additional bonus to retirement pensioners in the form of clothing purchase vouchers.

No, Sir. Reversion to benefits in kind would be a retrograde step.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the most lamentable statement of the decadence of Tory capitalism? Here we have a great industry which cannot produce, a large and reputable section of the community deprived of goods which it needs, an increasing number of workers deprived by political action of their chance of making those goods and factories standing empty, and the only thing that happens here is that day after day we hear Ministers getting up burbling and blathering the same pious and optimistic platitudes.

A very eloquent speech, but it is hardly a question.

I was asking the Minister to agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and suggesting that if he objects to subsidies he should convey that view to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and, if not, that he should do something for one of the great industries of this country which needs temporary help.

The hon. Gentleman will note that my Answer related to benefits in kind and not to subsidies. I express again the view that benefits in kind are quite alien to our system of National Insurance.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the total extra contributions for increased pensions paid by a man with a wage of £12 per week if he joined the graduated scheme at the age of 40 years, including the extra payments each five years; what would be his additional pension at the age of 65 years; what would be the value of these contributions if paid into a bank at 3½ per cent. compound interest rate; and for how many years he could, after reaching the age of 65 years, draw from the bank at the rate of 10s. per week.

Such a man would pay extra contributions above the present totalling just over £140 and would qualify for additional pension of a little over 10s. a week at 65, payable during his lifetime, with a right to half that amount for a surviving widow. The value of the extra contributions, if accumulated at 3½ per cent., would be about £205 and, assuming that interest continued to accrue after age 65, this would suffice to pay him a pension of 10s. a week for a little over nine years.

Is it not correct to say that that amount of money would be sufficient for the average life of the ordinary individual, and if that is so, is it not rather a mean State scheme which only provides the amount of benefit that a man's own contribution would give and under which he would receive no benefit whatsoever from the employer or yet from the State?

The hon. Member is, I am afraid, under a misapprehension in his calculation. The period given in my Answer was about nine years. At age 65 the expectation of life is about 12 years; and there is also the question of survivor's benefit for the widow.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the increasing amount of short-time working in industry, he will amend the rules governing the payment of unemployment benefit so that workers normally employed on a five-day week receive benefit for the days they are unemployed at the rate of one-fifth instead of one-sixth the benefit of a full week for each day for which they qualify for benefit, since they receive no payment for Saturdays.

The provision to which the hon. Member refers is embodied in the National Insurance Acts. It was fully discussed during the debates on the National Insurance Act last year, and legislation would be required to vary it. I should add that any departure from the principle that daily rates of both sickness and unemployment benefit are the same for all claimants would cause formidable difficulties and anomalies.

Does not the Minister take the view that he is getting it both ways? If he takes the present Regulations, it means that a five-day week worker is entitled to claim only one of those five days when unemployed—he gets no benefit for Saturday—and yet he only pays in for that one day at one-sixth of the weekly rate instead of one-fifth. Surely, in order to meet an anomaly in the unemployment insurance benefit rate, that benefit could be administered separately from any rates for sickness. The problem of short-time working is relevant to unemployment, and I do not think it would have any other consequence for the other rates of benefit which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Could the Minister look at the matter to see if any amendment could be introduced?

The hon. Member will recall that we discussed this matter at length on last year's Bill, and the understanding of the House was that it was quite impossible to separate the treatment of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit in this respect. After all, the same man may be entitled to both in consecutive periods.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that a great many things have happened since we discussed this matter a year ago, notably the rapid and rather appalling deterioration in the textile trade in Lancashire? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that this position in Lancashire is very relevant to what my hon. Friend has been asking him, because a great deal of the unemployment is concealed unemployment by reason of its being short-time working and under-employment in the factory itself, which neither appears in the Ministry of Labour returns nor is compensated by any unemployment benefit? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that if the Government can do nothing for the cotton workers in their employment, at least they should not cheat them of their unemployment pay?

The question of the adequacy of these fractions was fully thrashed out a year ago, when the House came to a very different conclusion from that expressed, in somewhat intemperate language, by the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance under what regulations and by what authority he does not allow a National Insurance contributor, or the widow of such contributor, to receive full benefits under the present National Insurance Scheme on the grounds that, prior to the date when the present National Insurance Scheme came into effect, such contributor was a voluntary contributor and that his voluntary contributions had temporarily lapsed.

The National Insurance (Pensions, Existing Contributors) (Transitional) Regulations, 1948, made under Section 65 of the National Insurance Act, 1946.

Is the Minister not exceeding the powers conferred on him by the National Insurance Act, 1946? Since Section 65 of that Act provides for the preservation of rights conferred by previous enactments, surely it is going both beyond the letter and the spirit of that Act to reduce a pension under the existing scheme merely because the contributor happened to be a voluntary contributor some time in the past?

So far as the legal validity of the Regulations is concerned, since ten years have elapsed since they were made by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Llannelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and since, as far as I know, they have not been challenged, I should think it extremely doubtful that there is any substance in the point made by the hon. Member. On the merits, it was, of course, in general an advantage to contributors that pre-scheme contributions were taken into account for the much higher post-scheme benefits.

Does the Minister agree that that does not help those for whom there is no advantage?

The hon. Member, no doubt, has sufficient experience of administration to know that most rules covering general propositions have disadvantageous effects on a limited number of people.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of war disability pensions in payment in respect of both world wars, and the number of pensioners from each war who receive one or more of the supplementary allowances for unemployability, constant attendance, and comforts.

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mrs. Haighton, 11a, Mountjoy Road, Huddersfield, whose husband was a voluntary contributor for many years prior to 1947, and was a contributor under the present National Insurance Scheme until the time of his death, has been awarded a widow's pension at less than the standard rate, whereas she would have been entitled to benefit at the full standard rate if her husband had made no voluntary contributions and had been a new entrant into insurance at the start of the present National Insurance Scheme on 5th July, 1948.

The rate of widow's benefit depends on the husband's yearly average of contributions. Where a person was insured under the Contributory Pensions Acts immediately before 5th July, 1948, his contribution record before that date has to be linked with that under the present scheme. Although Mr. Haighton had a full record of contributions from 5th July, 1948, his previous record was deficient and his yearly average was thereby reduced to 48 instead of the 50 or more required for payment at the full standard rate.

While I wish to make it clear that this case is raised as a matter of principle rather than one of hardship, may I ask the hon. Lady whether it is not anomalous and unfair that this widow should receive less than her full benefit simply because her husband happened to have been a voluntary contributor for a number of years before this scheme came into effect?

As my right hon. Friend explained in reply to the previous Question, the principle was to benefit the majority. There may be certain cases where the individual has not gained in benefit, but in this instance I would explain to the hon. Member that the contributions paid before 1948 and continued over 1948 covered this lady for widow's benefit had her husband died within three years of 1948. Happily that eventuality did not arise, but she was, in fact, so covered.

Is this not quite contrary to the normal policy of the Government, which usually benefits a minority at the expense of the majority?

Not to Conservative Government policy.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of war pensions in payment to widows bereaved as a result of service in the 1914–18 war; and whether he will consider taking steps to improve the position of these war widows by extension of the rent allowance or introduction of a special incapacity allowance for elderly war widows.

Eighty thousand six hundred on 30th June. My hon. Friend will be aware that earlier this year an improvement of 13s. 6d. a week was made in the standard rate of war widow's pension. I think this was a better way of dealing with the problem than the institution of new special allowances, but I am continuing to watch closely the position of war widows.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many war widows receiving National Assistance grants have suffered a reduction in the grant since the recent increase in war pensions; and what percentage of the total number of war widows receiving National Assistance this figure represents.

Since the effect of the increase referred to was to reduce need for National Assistance, all of the war widows then receiving assistance—some 4,000—had their assistance reduced or, in some cases, withdrawn. As, however, the national assistance rates were increased at the same time, they all received a net increase in income.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was a great disappointment and real hardship to many elderly war widows that these grants were reduced? Should not these people enjoy a greater benefit from increased pension by receiving a further increase of their present income? Will he look at this matter again so that these people may have better conditions than those which they now enjoy as a result of a reduction of grant?

Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They complain when recipients of these pensions have to resort to National Assistance. It is therefore a little illogical to say that when increased scales of pension reduce their reliance on Assistance this should also be a subject of criticism.

It is not a matter of logic; it is a matter of hardship.

I accept that the hon. Lady's Question is not based on logic.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration he has given to the financial position of elderly war widows who have suffered a reduction in circumstances due to recent rent increases; and whether he will make a statement.

As I said in reply to an earlier Question, I am closely watching the position of war widows. My information, however, is that the proportion of cases of elderly widows with serious rent problems is very small.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local war pensions committees have before them many cases of elderly widows outside the scope of National Assistance who are suffering hardship from rent increases under the Rent Act? Could not the right hon. Gentleman enable them to have some grant from the National Assistance Board to cover this increase in rent?

As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, there are means of obtaining help in individual cases for those who are above assistance level. My welfare officers are well aware of these and are often able to arrange them. As to the main part of my answer, it is a fact that inquiries, which it is my duty continuously to see that my welfare officers undertake, show that the number of cases of difficulty arising as a result of rent problems is small and is tending to decrease.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in the light of recent decisions concerning relief staff on the railways and the peculiarities of the terms of their employment in relation to their risks of injury by accident whilst travelling on the highway to their temporary places of employment, he will consider revising the regulations relating to eligibility to benefit under the Industrial Injury Acts.

This is a matter not of regulations but of express provisions of the Industrial Injuries Acts. These provisions are now well settled, and I have no proposals for legislation to amend them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is a question of interpretation of the Act? This class of person—railway relief staff—frequently has to travel long distances over the highway to carry out the instructions of his employer. A recent case was that of a relief crossing keeper at Hastings, ordered to relieve at Rye, starting at 6 o'clock in the morning, for which he was allowed two and a half hours' walking time. His only means of getting there was either to walk or cycle. He cycled to his job, lost his life in the process and his widow has now been denied industrial injury benefit. If I bring other cases to the Minister's notice will he look at them?

As the hon. Member rightly says, this is a matter of interpretation. Parliament in its wisdom has placed that interpretation in the hands of the statutory authorities. The case that the hon. Member has in mind was considered and decided by the Commissioner himself. On the general question, the hon. Member with his long experience of these matters, is aware that the fact that journeys to places of work are not generally covered—apart from the question of employers' transport—is a long-standing provision going right back to the time of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.

Will not the Minister look at this matter again instead of riding off in that way? A special problem is involved. As the Minister himself said, it is not a question altogether of the Act but of interpretation. There is the special problem of people who have no fixed point at which they commence work but who have to travel distances. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be adamant but to look at the matter again and see whether he cannot do something to assist these people who are in their employment for the whole of the time they are travelling.

The hon. Member is not, I think, facing the fact that these provisions are interpreted by the statutory authorities and not by me. I would, however, add the comment that this problem of people with varying places of work is not confined to railwaymen but arises in other occupations. The matter is one which was considered earlier by the courts and has now been dealt with by the statutory authorities over a good many years.

Is there not a case for referring this difficult matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council together with the matter raised a week ago at Question Time connected with the bus conductor who was seriously injured by a crowd of rowdies boarding his bus?

I doubt whether either of these matters, which turn upon the proper construction of statutory provisions, is appropriate for reference to the Advisory Council, whose function, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is to give advice more on questions of policy.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that, in respect of injuries falling within the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, a congenital defect which reveals itself only after the accident is, for the purpose of assessing disability benefit, regarded as a disability from which the injured person would, of necessity, have suffered had the accident not occurred, thus reducing the assessment as a disability not attributable to the accident; and whether he will take steps to rectify this anomaly.

No, Sir. I am aware that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act provides that a disability shall not be treated as resulting from an industrial injury if the claimant would in any case have been subject to that disability as the result of a congenital defect. I see no reason for an amendment of the Act in this respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question is wholly confined to those persons in respect of whom there was no evidence whatever before the accident of any congenital defect? Therefore, it is quite a wrong interpretation, where there is no evidence before the accident of congenital defect, to permit that defect to depreciate the amount of the assessment.

With respect, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Where, as in the case which he has in mind, there is a congenital defect, which in any event would have been there regardless of the accident, the mere fact that the person concerned becomes aware of it subsequent to the accident is surely no reason for treating it as if it had been caused by it. To do so would undermine the whole idea of industrial causation, which is the justification for the special provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people suffer from some congenital defect? If an accident brings it to light for the first time, would that be justification for having damages or benefits reduced, whether the claim was made under common law or under statute?

I will certainly not bandy law with the hon. and learned Member. On the narrow point of special treatment of industrial injuries, it does not seem justifiable to argue that a defect which unfortunately a man would have suffered from anyhow should be treated in these circumstances, and be paid for, as if it had been caused by an industrial accident, when the hon. and learned Member himself has made it clear that it was not.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if a person who was suffering from a congenital disability sustained a disability through an accident, and if the accident combined with the original disability increased that person's disability, account should be taken of both disabilities in assessing payment?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a quite different question.

It is the same question.

With respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), it is a most interesting and important question, but it is different from one where there is a defect from which a man would have suffered anyhow, independent of industrial accident.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many applications for increased grants for higher rents under the Rent Act, 1957, have been approved by the National Assistance Board.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons receiving National Assistance grants have been granted increases to meet the higher rentals charged them in consequence of the provisions of the 1957 Rent Act; and what is the actual or approximate average increase so granted.

I am informed by the National Assistance Board that rather more than 300,000 weekly National Assistance grants have been increased, by an average of 6s. 8d., to provide for rent increases under the Rent Act, 1957. It is not, however, known how many of the recipients of these grants are still receiving assistance.

In the light of that reply, is it not true that, allowing for new applications and cessations, the National Assistance Board is providing a subvention to landlords and property companies of something like £50,000 to £60,000 a week? Has the right hon. Gentleman had many letters of appreciation from grateful landlords and property companies?

I should not like, without great consideration, to accept the hon. Member's mathematics. On the main issue which he raised, the fact is that this is relief given to persons on National Assistance, and it is our view that such relief is more fairly given by the community through the Assistance Board than on an individual basis by a person's landlord.

Do I understand the Minister to say that this was in respect of relief given to assist indigent or needy persons? Is it not a fact that this money is not being given to relieve these people themselves but is indirectly being given because the Government introduced an Act which enabled landlords to charge more and the Government are now subsidising those landlords? Will the Minister be good enough to have another word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing to see what can be done about the matter?

The National Assistance Board, in discharge of the duty imposed upon it by Act of Parliament, makes assistance payments only to those persons whose means bring them within scales laid down by Parliament. There is no question of payment to anybody else.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that there is confusion in the minds of old-age pensioners about their eligibility for a refund of the cost of National Health prescriptions; and whether he will make a statement to clarify this matter.

Refunds of prescription charges are payments of National Assistance and are therefore made to any pensioner who is in need on National Assistance standards.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the National Assistance scale takes into account the actual amount spent on prescription charges, which is sometimes in excess of the margin of difference by which the old-age pensioner exceeds the scale laid down by the National Assistance Board? If, for example, he is 2s. over the scale but has a weekly prescription charge of 4s., can he obtain a refund of half of the 4s. or of the full 4s.?

In general, as I understand, the Board takes the view that if the payment of the prescription charge puts the applicant below the means level involved, then a payment can be made by the Board. But, as this is a rather technical question, I should prefer it if the hon. Member would be kind enough to put it in a precise form on the Order Paper so that there can be no misunderstanding whatever about the answer.

If the old-age pensioner has to pay 2s. for a prescription, can he get from the National Assistance a sum to cover that only?

Not, as I understand it, unless he is in need by Assistance standards, or that 2s. puts him in need by those standards.

asked the Paymaster-General (1) what was the output of steel ingots in the north-eastern area for the latest week for which information is available; and what proportion of the productive capacity that output represented;

Sixty-eight thousand five hundred tons of crude steel and 46,800 tons of pig-iron were produced in the north-east coast area in the week ended 8th November. These figures represent about 72 and 70 per cent. of capacity, respectively.

As production is now well under capacity, has the Parliamentary Secretary received any representations from the Iron and Steel Board asking what the Government intend to do to give more work to the steel industry? Has the Board made any suggestions or put forward any plans which might be put into operation to help the industry at this time?

The whole question of plans along those lines has been very fully dealt with in recent debates in the House, and I do not think that I can add anything by way of answer to a supplementary question.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the proportion of total British steel output capacity now in use compared with the latest available figure from the European Coal and Steel Community.

The latest period for which comparable figures are available is the second quarter of the year, when 85 per cent. of the capacity in the United Kingdom was in production, compared with 88 per cent. in the European Coal and Steel Community. I understand that production in this country is now running at about 78 per cent. of capacity.

In view of these figures, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to maintain their attitude of apparent indifference to the recession in the British steel industry?

As I said before, I should not have thought that the recent announcements of increased investment and so on indicated that the Government were indifferent.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the present membership of the Iron and Steel Board.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the present membership of the Iron and Steel Board.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 6th November, at column 1229 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he referred to the membership of this Board and to trade union representatives? The hon. Gentleman said that there are three on the Board. Is he aware that there are no trade union representatives on the Board and that nobody is sent there to represent his union? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that he referred to the General Secretary of the National Union of Blast Furnacemen, Ore Miners, Coke Workers and Kindred Trades as being a member of the Board? Is he also aware that the secretary of that union is Mr. Joseph O'Hagan and that he is not a member of the Board?

Without looking at HANSARD, I cannot say whose was the slip, if it is so stated. The right hon. Gentleman is right, none of these members is representative of any body. The point of the argument at that time was whether the membership of the Board carried in it as large a contingent of persons from the trade union movement, and I pointed out that it was larger. For instance, Sir Lincoln Evans and Sir Andrew Naesmith, it is true, are not representatives of the trade union movement any more than other members are representatives of industry. If there has been any slip, I will apologise to the House, but the point was clear that there were people on the Board with a trade union background.

May we take it that the short answer to my question is, yes, Mr. O'Hagan is not a member of the Board?

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the total saving in coal consumed and in money terms brought about by improved thermal efficiency in British power stations between 1947–48 and 1957–58, also the increase in the average price received for electricity sold between 1947–48 and 1957–58 compared with the increase in the general level of prices over the same period, and the percentage fall in the number of employees per standard unit of output capacity in the electricity supply industry between the first year of nationalisation and 31st March, 1958.

The approximate answers are 44 million tons worth £160 million; 35 per cent. compared with 60 per cent.; 40 per cent.

asked the Minister of Supply what decision has been reached about the future of the Princess flying boats.

None, Sir. Various possibilities are still being considered.

How many years is it since these aircraft were completed, and what future has my right hon. Friend in mind for them? Are they awaiting more powerful engines, or are they to be used as test beds either by ourselves or by our allies? Can we be given some idea of their future?

Negotiations are in progress between the relevant company and the American authorities on the possible use of the aircraft as a test bed for nuclear engines. While negotiations are in progress it would be wrong to decide to scrap the aircraft.

Are we to understand that the fact that the aircraft might go to the United States for that purpose means that this country has no plans at all for using nuclear power for aviation purposes?

The hon. Gentleman will be well advised to await the outcome of the negotiations which are now taking place with the United States.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement on the cancellation of an order by the West German Government for armoured troop carriers from Great Britain, owing to the failure of these vehicles to meet specifications and to what extent the British Army has ordered these vehicles.

Early in 1957 the West German Government placed with the British subsidiary of the Hispano Suiza Company, viz. the British Manufacture and Research Company, Limited, a contract to produce 2,800 vehicles to the design of the foreign parent company. Much of the work was sub-contracted to Leyland Motors Limited. In August last the Federal German Government communicated to the main contractor their intention to cancel the contract for 1,800 of these vehicles. Their reasons have been asked for by Her Majesty's Government, but have not yet been received.

Can we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will sooner or later satisfy himself one way or the other whether these vehicles were or were not up to specification, both in the interests of our own exports and in the interests of their possible supply to the British Army?

Certainly, Sir, I will endeavour to satisfy myself, but at the moment I have no knowledge of the specification. No vehicle for inspection has been received by me, and until it has I cannot comment.

asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made under Article II (4) of the agreement with the United States of America to exchange atomic energy information for mutual defence purposes, following discussions on the possibility of a joint effort in launching an earth space satellite.

The agreement mentioned by the hon. Member does not cover the exchange of information related to the launching of a satellite. We are, however, always in touch with the United States authorities on matters of this kind.

In view of the agreement about the carriers of warheads and the exchange of information thereon, and particularly having in mind that it concerns the intercontinental ballistic missiles which have at least half the launching capacity required for a satellite, is it not conceivable that we could have discussions within that agreement for a joint space satellite?

The Question refers to vehicle assistance, and there is an exchange of information between the Americans and ourselves on that subject.

In view of the wretched state of the equipment of our forces, as we have seen from our latest report, cannot we get on with that instead of wasting time and money over satellites?

That is rather a different question.

asked the Minister of Supply what is his estimate of the prospective decline in employment in the aircraft industry in the years 1959 and 1960 arising out of the readjustment in the military programme.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 10th November.

Is it the case that leaders of the aircraft industry have warned the Government that within the next two years there will be 100,000 men in the aircraft industry made redundant because of the switch-over to guided missiles and so on, and, in view of the decline in the machine tool industry, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a grave danger of widespread unemployment in the engineering industry? What action has he taken to find alternative occupation for the men who will be made redundant in this way?

I think the figure of 100,000 is an exaggeration. I mentioned that figure some time ago, but it is related t o a five-year period and not a two-year period. I agree that there is a prospect of redundancy. I think it is best dealt with by diversification on the part of the aircraft firms themselves, and to some extent that is taking place. For the rest, I have been agreeably surprised by the capacity of other industries to absorb skilled craftsmen made redundant for aircraft work.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the action contemplated by his right hon. Friend in closing Croydon Airport, two small but useful firms now making light aircraft are likely to be put out of business altogether? Has he interested himself in this matter, and is he trying to find alternative accommodation for them?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the consultations with the United States of America now taking place on development of futuristic aircraft, what estimate he has made of the cost of the production of a supersonic variable geometry aircraft, such as the Swallow, the Bristol all-steel research aircraft, and the Hawker vertical takeoff jet fighter, by the United Kingdom alone.

It is not customary to divulge details of contracts or estimated costs.

Would it not be a colossal sum for us if we tried to develop these futuristic aircraft on our own? They are of several types, and probably all are worthy of development. Would it not be to our advantage to cement this Anglo-American alliance with joint effort over this type of aircraft, because it would not be possible for us to do it alone?

The definition of "colossal" depends on one's standards in these things, but I agree that military aircraft these days are highly expensive, and for that reason American aid for any of these projects would be extremely welcome.

asked the Minister of Supply whether a decision has now been reached on the future of the Bristol Bloodhound and the English Electric Thunderbird guided missiles; to what extent they are to play a role within the Royal Air Force and the Army; and what orders have been placed by these two Services to date.

Bloodhound and Thunderbird are surface-to-air guided weapons in production for the R.A.F. and the Army, respectively. I cannot give the size of the orders.

Can the Minister do something to allay concern about the future of the English Electric Thunderbird and say whether it has any future within the Army?

I can only repeat the Answer which I have just given, that the Thunderbird is now in production for the Army. To my knowledge, there is no contemplated change in that position.

asked the Paymaster-General how production and consumption of coal to date this year compares with last year; and what is the planned coal production for 1959.

Up to 1st November, production has been 181·8 million tons compared with 188·7 million tons last year; consumption, including exports, has been 173·8 million tons compared with 184·1 million tons. Production in 1959 will depend on the level of demand.

Having regard to the drop of 11 million tons in coal consumption this year compared with last year, and the fact that there is very grave anxiety in the coalfields about accumulated stocks of coal, much of a quality which could never be sold, and the fact that stocks are now 16 million tons, could my hon. Friend say whether he proposes to make any early statement as to future coal production policy?

Without accepting some of the alleged descriptions in my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I may say that these are matters which may very appropriately be dealt with in the forthcoming debate on the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order which the House will have an opportunity of debating in the very near future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this problem of over-production will be dealt with by stimulating industry generally rather than by making coal miners unemployed?

I am not quite sure what that question means. [Laughter.] I would like to look at it. I would like to read it carefully, but if it means what I think it means, that if there were less coal there would be less coal, I agree.

asked the Paymaster-General what were the accumulated losses of the National Coal Board at 30th June, 1958; and what estimate he has made of such losses at 30th September, 1958; and how such losses are to be financed by his Department.

asked the Paymaster-General what is the total financial loss sustained by the National Coal Board; and, in its requests to him for facilities for financing the loss, what proportion of it the Board attributes to the high stocks of undistributed coal.

The cumulative loss incurred by the National Coal Board between vesting day and 30th June, 1958, was £25·;5 million; for the third quarter figures, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the quarterly statistical statement which will be published in due course. The accumulated losses have been financed by the Board from its own resources.

Could my hon. Friend say whether the Board will continue to be in a position to finance losses from its own resources, having regard to the fact that the accumulated losses by the end of this calendar year will probably be of the order of £40 million, added to a figure of £60 million, being the value of the large quantities of unsold stocks, and as that represents in aggregation a figure of £100 million, can my hon. Friend say whether the Minister views with equanimity such a large sum of capital being sterilised?

I do not think we would view it with equanimity if it existed anywhere but in my hon. Friend's brain. Once again I think it would be better if we waited for these rather complicated figures to be discussed when the Order gives us an opportunity of doing so rather more adequately than by way of supplementary questions.

Since the undistributed stocks are mainly the result of Government economic policy, can the Parliamentary Secretary say when and how they will be reduced to normal proportions?

Again I am afraid I do not agree with what was no doubt the important part of the question, namely, the statement. It is not by any means true that all these additional stocks are the result of Government policy. For instance, there is a substantial fall in exports, which certainly cannot be anything to do with the Government. I am afraid it is also true that, in some sections of the coal trade at any rate, coal is pricing itself out of the market.

Can the Minister explain to me why it is that an unexpected wealth of reserves in coal is regarded as a serious economic factor in the position of the industry?

I think there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think these stocks should be looked at in a panic way. On the other hand, they are a substantial financial problem for the Coal Board.

asked the Paymaster-General what tonnage of coal is held on surface by the National Coal Board unsold, and what financial burden this represents; whether any special loan facilities are to be arranged by his Department to finance these stocks; and what is the total tonnage of distributed and undistributed coal stocks at the latest convenient date.

On 1st November, stocks of coal at collieries and at opencast sites amounted to 17·7 million tons, valued at about £55 million; at the same date distributed and undistributed stocks together amounted to 36·8 million tons. The National Coal Board's working capital is normally provided by advances from the Minister; and an Order providing for these to exceed the statutory annual limit will shortly be laid before the House.

Far from my figures earlier being a figment of the imagination, I under-estimated the value of stocks. Now will my hon. Friend say, without viewing with equanimity the value of these stocks, how he proposes to sell this coal, much of which is deemed by the Coal Board and others to be unsaleable? Is that not a serious drug on the market in present circumstances?

I am sorry, Sir. The hon. Member may have information as to the Board's views which is not available to the Ministry of Power, but I am assured by the Coal Board that the written down value of these stocks is in its commercial opinion reasonable. The Board may be wrong, of course, and I dare say even the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may some day be wrong, but in its view the written down value at which these stocks appear in its books is a reasonable one.

asked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware that stocks of coal, mostly for industrial use, in the West Midlands Division of the National Coal Board have reached a level of 1,700,000 tons in spite of a fall in production this year of 875,000 tons; and to what extent, in view of these facts, he intends to persist with his authorization of opencast coalmining at Polesworth in the county of Warwick.

Despite the present high level of stocks, my noble Friend would not be justified in refusing all proposals for new opencast sites, and the Abbey site in the Polesworth area is one which he has decided to authorise.

But why does the Minister persist in ripping out the heart of this historic village? Is he aware that the people of Polesworth, the miners and the farmers, the rector of the Abbey Church, the parish, the rural district and the county councils, are all strongly opposed to this project? Is it not a case of profit taking precedence over public interest?

I do not know whether that it is an accusation which is commonly levelled against the Coal Board, but the facts are that this site of about 100 acres is expected to yield very nearly 700,000 tons of coal and it has almost three times as much coal to the acre as the average of these sites. Having regard to the fact, which has been explained often to the House, that some opencast coal must still be got—although we are being much more careful in the selection of sites—this is clearly one with which it is reasonable to proceed.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the House cannot follow him in his argument that opencast coal must be got when there are large stocks available? This is neither a charge against the Coal Board nor against private enterprise. There were stocks in the private enterprise days when industry was slack and there will always be stocks, but why now should we be going for opencast when we should be keeping that maybe for a rainy strategic day?

I cannot debate this by way of question and answer. Whether this particular source of coal should be exploited rather than another, perhaps some deep-mined pit, is a matter of commercial judgment for the Board. There are no greater stocks produced by one type of coal, such as this opencast, than from another type of coal from a deep mine. It seems to be suggested by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends that large stocks arise only when produced from opencast coal. Unfortunately, they sometimes arise however it is produced.

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

asked the Paymaster-General how many new opencast sites have been approved since the passing of the Opencast Coal Act.

None under the new Act, but 31 sites have been authorised for which application had been made under Defence Regulations before the Act came into operation.

asked the Paymaster-General what applications for opencast coal mining he is considering in the Bignall End, Halmerend, and Scot Hay areas of the Newcastle-under-Lyme rural district.

No applications have been received for opencast coal mining in these districts.

asked the Paymaster-General how many applications for authority for opencast coal mining have been received since the Opencast Coal Act, 1958, came into operation; and how many of these came from North Staffordshire.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department's policy now makes no sense at all to a very large number of people in coal mining areas in view of the accumulation of stocks, for example, in the West Midlands? Although in constituencies like mine old coal mines have been closed down and older men workers have been made redundant, the Department is encouraging people to continue to prospect for opencast coal, without any kind of promise that authority will be given to get it. The policy seems absolutely nonsensical in the present situation.

I am sorry if the policy appears nonsensical, but any pits which are closed are closed because they are hideously expensive and have become quite uneconomical. If any opencast site now manages to get authority, it is authorised only if it helps the unfortunate Coal Board to make a bit of money.

asked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the shortage of smokeless fuels now being experienced by householders, he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to maintain an adequate distribution of smokeless fuels to merchants.

No, Sir. According to my information the necessity for such a course does not exist. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I should be happy to look into it if he will advise me.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many parts of the country it is extremely difficult to obtain smokeless fuels, and will he point out whether it is the fault of the National Coal Board or the independent merchants?

It would be better if the hon. Gentleman would give me particulars.

asked the Paymaster-General what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Coal Distribution Costs in Great Britain.

Most of the recommendations of the Committee related to the administration of price control, which has now been abolished. My noble Friend has kept in touch with price movements since decontrol, and he considers that the responsibility for prices should be left to the retail trade in competition with each other and other fuels. The recommendation on mechanisation is still under consideration.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Robson Report reveals that 37 per cent. of the cost of domestic coal is due to transport and merchants' margins? In view of that, does he not think the matter needs further investigation?

The Robson Report findings were quite the reverse. The Committee says in terms that it does not think that the charges for wholesale services are open to serious criticism.

asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in regard to the building of Crawley Hospital; and on what date he anticipates the hospital building will be completed.

Tenders have been invited for the first stage of building, with a view to work starting before the end of the financial year. It is estimated that this work will take about two years to complete.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this whole story of Crawley Hospital represents a public scandal and is an epic of bureaucratic muddle, stubbornness and stupidity? Does he not further realise that his right hon. and learned Friend's predecessors have given me assurance after assurance and promise after promise since September, 1954, during which period the population of Crawley has grown by 26,000? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend to institute a departmental inquiry into this matter?

While recognising my hon. Friend's assiduity in these matters, I do not accept any of the implications of his supplementary question. My right hon. and learned Friend does not feel that an inquiry is called for. I remind my hon. Friend that this is a very large and costly scheme involving planning on a most extensive scale. The first stage is now under way.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my hon. Friend's reply, I shall try to raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will reconsider the terms of his recent circular to hospital authorities in which their attention is drawn to the desirability of introducing shorter working hours for nurses while denying any financial provision that might be required;

I have called for progress reports at the end of this month and will consider the position in the light of the results achieved.

Do I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply that he is prepared to change his view about financing these schemes? Is he prepared to reconsider his attitude, in view of the other expenditure which the Government are now incurring?

That does not arise at this stage. What I want to do is to see whether we can get a reduction of hours following on an increase of efficiency due to rationalisation rather than to a further expenditure of money.

Can I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared sympathetically to consider the problems of some hospitals which, for financial reasons, cannot reduce hours without increasing staff?

The need for increases in staff and the extent to which that can be achieved within the funds available will be a matter to be considered in the light of that and all other circumstances.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the difficulty about putting a 44-hour week into operation is largely that in the older hospitals the staffs are under establishment because of the difficulty of recruiting nurses, due to the hard work and the number of steps which have to be climbed in those hospitals? Is he not aware that management committees have been informed that they cannot reduce hours by increasing staff, and that without financial assistance for that the situation is being made even more difficult?

I take the hon. Lady's point, but she will appreciate that I shall be able to test its extent and validity when I compare reports from different types of hospitals.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the feeling that exists among parents and others against the proposal to close Queen Mary's Hospital for Sick Children, Carshalton; and whether he will reconsider the matter.

I have received representations from several sources about the proposal to change the use of this hospital, and I will certainly take these and all relevant factors into account before coming to a decision.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. Will he bear in mind that for many years this hospital has enjoyed a deservedly high reputation among parents for its specialised work in dealing with child patients, and that there would be great concern if it were closed and children sent in future to general hospitals?

I must make it clear that there is no proposal to close Queen Mary's Hospital, as might appear from the hon. Member's Question. The proposal is concerned merely with a change of use. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the high repute of this hospital, but at present it is nearly half-empty because of the very welcome fall in the need for accommodation for children.

In view of the misunderstanding in some quarters about this hospital, does not the Minister think it desirable to make public the fact that there has been a striking decrease in the demand for pediatric accommodation?

Yes. The right hon. Lady is aware that we seek to publicise this striking and welcome fall in the demand for pediatric accommodation, which is insufficiently realised by the public, and I hope that what she has now said will assist to that end.

In considering this matter, will the Minister also not forget the desperate need of Fountain Hospital, which also has a high reputation, for decent, modern, permanent accommodation?

I have that very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British delegate to the United Nations voted in the Political Committee of the General Assembly against a resolution regretting the apartheid policies of the South African Government.

The United Kingdom delegate voted as he did for the reasons given in his statement to the Special Political Committee on 21st October. I am circulating the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Did not 70 other members of the United Nations challenge the legal interpretation of the Charter which the United Kingdom delegate put forward? Did not those 70 members include two Dominions, India and Ceylon, and the United States of America? Is it not the case that no other Dominion voted against that simple expression of regret at the apartheid policies of the South African Government? Is it not astonishing that the United Kingdom alone of the whole Commonwealth should consider it necessary to put a legalistic interpretation on the Article?

As the hon. Lady knows, there is an annual legal argument on this matter and we have maintained a consistent view about it. If the hon. Lady will read the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom Government on that occasion, she will see exactly why we took the view we did.

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that the Government, Parliament and the country will not tolerate for one moment the application of apartheid principles to any of our Colonial Territories?

That is why I ask the House to read the statement made by the British representative, in which we say that we accept the principles in the first operative paragraph of the Resolution, for the reasons which are given in the statement and which are absolutely valid and wise, and why we voted as we did.

Is not the Foreign Secretary aware, though what he has just said may be perfectly true, that this never makes any impact on world opinion? Does he not think that the time has come to review what has, I admit, been a consistent legal attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government in this matter? In view of the ambiguity and doubt about the interpretation of this Article and the very serious political consequences which follow every time the United Kingdom votes in this way, should we not reconsider the issue?

By implication, the right hon. Gentleman has been a little fairer than have some of his colleagues in this matter. He knows that their views about Article 7 were not given by the Government on this occasion for the first time. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the statement made by our representative.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend circulate the statement in HANSARD?

Yes, I have said that I will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government have not signed and ratified the Convention on the Political Rights of Women adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1952.

The main reason why Her Majesty's Government cannot became a party to this Convention is that it does not contain a Territorial Application Clause. If the Convention were signed and ratified by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom its provisions would then become applicable to all territories for whose international relations Her Majesty's Government are responsible; this is not possible at present, given their different social systems and varying stages of development. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend said in the House on 27th November, 1957, Her Majesty's Government support the principles embodied in this Convention.

Is the hon. Member aware that the General Council of the United Nations Association voted unanimously in favour of a resolution calling upon Her Majesty's Government to sign and ratify this Convention, and that the Association is well aware of the Territorial Application Clause to which the hon. Member refers? In view of this great body of opinion in favour of women's political rights, will not the Government look at the whole matter again?

I am well aware of the Resolution that was passed, but I think that the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government stand firm, and I do not see any purpose in reviewing the matter.

Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to adhere to this Convention for the great majority of territories under our rule or protection, adding a rider that we hope to apply it to the remainder as and when social conditions permit?

That proposition is well worth consideration, but as matters stand it would not be possible under arrangements to date.

With great respect, is it not always possible to adhere to a convention in respect of certain territories and make reservations about the rest?

Not on this occasion, but we will examine the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Council of the United Nations Association very often passes resolutions which have very little support among the general members of the Association? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the effect of the mischievous resolution passed at the time of Suez?