asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are now proposed to enable countries with insufficient sterling resources to purchase British books and periodicals or to hire British films.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the demand for books in English which at present exists in under-developed countries, and in view of the desirability of extending British influence in such countries, he will consider taking special steps to meet this demand.

I have been asked to reply, in the absence abroad on official business of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. My right hon. Friend's study of the whole problem of exports of British books and periodicals is still in progress; a statement will be made as soon as possible. The study is confined to books and periodicals; it does not extend to commercial films.

Whilst appreciating that we have to await the return of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, may I ask if the Minister will convey to the right hon. Gentleman the great anxiety of, I believe, Members in all parts of the House on this matter, and the anxiety also of the trade, to have specific information as soon as possible, following upon the encouraging statement made by the right hon. Gentleman?

Yes, I will convey that to my right hon. Friend. I think I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that the trade has already been consulted on these complicated matters and that the results of those consultations are at present under close study.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many copies of the official Bulletin 140, "Wild Birds and the Land", have been printed; how many have been sold; if he is aware of the wide interest in, and educative value of, this booklet; and if he will include in the next impression a summary of the schedules to the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, in order that more people may learn which birds are protected by law and which are not.

One hundred and five thousand five hundred copies of my Ministry's Bulletin "Wild Birds and the Land" have been printed since it was published in October, 1948, and nearly 100,000 copies have been sold. I think this is evidence of its wide appeal and educational interest. When the question of reprinting arises, my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider including a summary of the schedules to the Protection of Birds Act, 1954.

May I thank my hon. Friend?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision he has reached in regard to the representation of allotment associations on local authority allotment committees; and what advice he has received concerning this matter from the National Allotments and Gardens Society.

I am unable at present to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) on this subject on 10th November last.

Can my right hon. Friend get a reply in the near future, as the matter is very important to the allotment associations? Will he press the National Allotments and Gardens Society to get full representation?

I quite see my hon. Friend's point, but we have to allow the local authority associations to say what they wish to say. I hope they will not delay too long before coming forward, if they want to make representations.

Can we be satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is using his full weight, knowing exactly what the National Allotments and Gardens Society feel about this retrograde step?

I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I would be wrong to make a statement until I had heard what the local authority associations have to say. I am waiting to hear from them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much agricultural land has been lost for food production in the 10 years 1948 to 1957, inclusive; and what has been the total increase in food production over the same period;

Precise figures for the loss of agricultural land are not available. The only information is derived from the Agricultural Returns, which are collected for other purposes and which exclude holdings of one acre or less and those parts of agricultural holdings not used for agricultural production. Subject to these reservations it is estimated that, in England and Wales, the net loss of agricultural land to food production has been 462,000 acres over the ten years 1948 to 1957, or less than 2 per cent, of the total area of agricultural land. A large proportion of this land has been converted to woodland and forestry development. Over this period food production has increased by about 16 per cent. If the present trend continues, it is possible that the same area of land in England and Wales could be lost during the next ten years: but past achievements would indicate that the effects of such a loss could readily be made good by the increasing efficiency of British farmers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Answer now given varies from the information I had when I last put down a Question on the point and when the loss was given as about 3½ per cent. of the total acreage available of land under production? Would he not agree that an increase of food production against the background of this continuing loss of land is a very noteworthy achievement indeed, on which British farmers are to be congratulated?

I warmly support the latter part of what my hon. Friend has said. I have noted his first point, and would like to look into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman willing to say that this wonderful achievement on the part of agriculture is almost wholly due to the agricultural policy of the Labour Government?

I would be very happy to say that the right hon. Gentleman, among many other people, has played his part in bringing about that result.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the total food requirements of Great Britain is now met by home production; and, assuming no change in the present dietary habits, what he estimates will be the average annual increase in food production necessary to ensure that the proportion of home produced to imported foodstuffs does not fall during the ten years 1958 to 1967, inclusive.

The proportion of home production to total supplies in Great Britain cannot be ascertained exactly, but is about one-half. If one was to assume no change in the amount or composition of individual diets, an increase in total consumption can only follow from an increase in population. This might amount to about 3½ to 4 per cent., between 1958 and 1967.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I find it a little difficult from his Answer to gather whether or not we are likely to meet the increase in food production necessary which will follow upon a continuing loss of land and an increase of population? Would he regard it as a serious matter if the proportion of home-produced to imported foodstuffs fell over the next ten years?

I should have thought my previous Answer indicated clearly the extent to which increasing production per acre can offset loss in total area. On the second part of the supplementary question, I should certainly agree that it is right and proper that we should continue to produce at least as high a percentage at home as we are doing at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the White Fish Authority in classifying and defining the types of fish sold in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to rock salmon, catfish, dogfish, huss, Scotch hake, lemon sole, sole and dab.

A recommended list of names under which fresh and frozen fish should be sold by retail has now been prepared by the White Fish Authority in consultation with the local authority associations and the trade organisations. The Authority expect to publish the list early next month and will issue it to the trade as a code of practice.

Whilst thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that information, may I ask if he does not think it unnecessarily confusing that rock salmon, dogfish, catfish and huss are the same thing? Whatever the name, does he not think it worth pointing out that this fish comes from the shark family?

I agree that we do not want to be confused by a lot of names. My advice is that dogfish and catfish are quite different commodities, but some of the other names, I agree, are simply different names for the same fish.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fanners have been refused improvement grants under the Agriculture Act, 1957, on the grounds that their farms are not economic units; and what proportion of the farmers are likely to find themselves excluded from the Small Farmer Scheme on the grounds that their standard labour requirements exceed 450 man-days.

Up to 31st December, 1958, 1,988 applications for improvement grants under the Agriculture Act, 1957, had been rejected on the grounds that the land to be improved would not after improvement provide a sufficient livelihood to an average occupier. I am unable to say how many of the farmers concerned would be ineligible for assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme because the standard labour requirements of their farm business exceed 450 standard man-days The number is likely to be small however because I would expect the difference of treatment to arise only in cases where the farm business as a whole is large but the land is in divided ownership or the occupier is relying heavily on intensive production based on bought-in feeding-stuffs.

When he is framing his scheme under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Bill will my right hon. Friend make special provision to avoid a situation arising in which a farmer who has been refused an improvement grant on the ground that his farm is incapable of providing a living comparable with that of a farm worker finds himself excluded from the Small Farmer Scheme simply because he has proved, in fact, that the farm is capable of providing such a living?

I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but there may still be cases which fall between two stools. An example would be where the applicant has 25 acres of poor land on which he keeps several thousand head of poultry. The poultry would mean an assessment of well over 450 standard man-days, but because of the limited area and poor quality of the land the holding would not satisfy the statutory tests of a farm improvement scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his proposed alterations on the standard man-days to be used on the qualifying test for the Small Farmer Scheme.

I have given further consideration to the provisional list of standard labour requirements which was published for the purposes of illustration in Appendix I to the White Paper "Assistance for Small Farmers" and have decided to make a number of minor changes in the requirements allotted to some kinds of crops and livestock. In doing so I have taken into account comments received from the Farmers Unions and other responsible sources. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing these changes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate the fact that his mind is not closed about this matter, but there have been a number of criticisms and he has paid some attention to them? As he would not accept my suggestion of a committee, will he keep the matter under review with his officers?

I can assure the hon. Member that is precisely what I have been doing.

What do the minor alterations add up to by way of increasing the present limit of 450 man-days?

I am circulating details, but, roughly speaking, at the upper end of the scale their general tendency will be to bring more farmers within the Scheme. That is because we are putting a lower value on poultry, orchards, lettuces, carrots and crops under glass. We are increasing the assessment of breeding sows, gilts and boars.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on his examination of the working of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.

There are many factors to be considered among which the question of feedingstuffs additives is an important one. Scientific work on this is proceeding, but until further evidence is available I am not in a position to make a statement.

As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said a year ago that the examination was proceeding, and as the right hon. Gentleman is still not able to make up his mind, will he appoint a committee to make up his mind for him?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for very helpfully suggesting how I should make up my mind, but I can assure him that this is a very complicated subject. The question of hormones is being studied. These are complicated matters which make it difficult to make an early announcement, but I shall try to hurry it up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grants have been approved in respect of improvements under the Agriculture Act, 1957; at what estimated cost; and how many applications have been received.

At the end of December, 1958, 51,921 applications had been received in England and Wales. Of these, 28,630 had been formally approved at a total estimated cost of just under £20 million, attracting grant of one-third. Another 5,945 applications had been approved in principle.

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing appreciation at the progress which has been made? Can the Minister say whether the 6,500 claims which were generally accepted but subject to further details that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary announced in June have been cleared and whether the proportion of small farmers taking advantage of the scheme is now increasing as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary then hoped it would?

In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, I should say that on the whole that is happening. As to the other part, there are still about 6,000, but this is a pipeline and the people concerned are not necessarily the same as those in June.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about Government policy towards the horticultural industry.

Yes, Sir. As the House knows, the main instrument of Government policy for promoting stability, efficiency and a proper level of remuneration for horticulture is the Tariff. This was comprehensively reviewed in 1953, and the existing tariff came into operation in 1954. By and large, it has served its purpose well.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for the fullness of that Answer and appreciating enormously the part he has played in getting this policy adopted by the Government, may I ask if he would not agree that it is primarily designed to have results in a longer term than would be desired by many in the industry today who face very pressing problems indeed in foreign competition and an inadequate return to themselves? Would he bear in mind that rejection by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Friday of tariff applications has caused very great dismay in the industry and that this new proposal would not satisfy the need of the industry as it is today?

My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right when he says that the proposals which I have just announced will be of long-term effect. My view, which I think is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that there is room for a scheme of this sort. The Farm Improvements Scheme has shown in agriculture that a useful job on this line can be done, and I believe that the proposal which I have just announced in broad outline will perhaps provide a similar kind of assistance for horticulture. On the question of the tariff rejections to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, I can only repeat that the tariff remains the main instrument for promoting stability, efficiency and a proper level of remuneration for horticulture. That policy stands, and will continue to stand, as far as we are concerned.

When providing what we might term production grants, which I think is always the best method of helping agriculture, or providing financial help for the building of central depots for the collection, grading and preparation of fruit for the market, will the right hon. Gentleman insist that when a grant is provided for any such buildings it will be based upon a marketing scheme for the commodities which will be collected in those buildings?

It would be wrong for me to try to answer the right hon. Gentleman in detail now. I said at the end of my Answer that we must discuss in detail the working out of the scheme with the National Farmers' Union, and doubtless account will be taken of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look up the Act of 1933, which enables the Minister or Ministers to provide tariffs on condition that there is a marketing scheme for the commodity in question? I do not ask him to do more than that.

I always do what the right hon. Gentleman tells me. I will certainly look at the Act.

In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that the tariff remains the main instrument for assisting the horticultural industry, in conformity with the pledge given by the Government at the last Election, will he impress upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the need to keep tariffs at a realistic level, to review them from time to time and be ready to put them up when fair economic facts demand it?

What I have just announced is a Government decision, as was the decision of the President of the Board of Trade. I naturally pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said, but I want him to realise that this is a decision by the Government as a whole, not a decision by any particular Minister.

In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he is aware that he is accepting the suggestion which we made when we were discussing the Bill in Committee in 1957? As he has committed himself to introducing legislation on horticulture, will he take the opportunity of dealing in the same Bill with the marketing proposals which we made in June of last year?

I am tempted by the possibility of doing so. I am not sure, however, how long these negotiations will continue, and I can make no promise. I will, however, note what the hon. Gentleman has said. As for his crack about this being an idea put forward by hon. Members opposite, I would point out that they were in power between 1945 and 1951 and that, as far as I know, they never did anything of this sort for horticulture.

Will my right hon. Friend have another word with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see whether it is not possible even now to restore the effective value of tariff rates at least to the 1953 level while these new, hopeful and very welcome plans for the horticultural industry are being worked out, in order to ensure that meanwhile the horticultural industry is not prejudiced?

I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have said. I am sure that great note will be taken of what my hon. Friend has just said, because he is most respected in the sphere of agriculture and horticulture, to which he has given so much of his time.

Whilst one can understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite about this matter, is it not rather strange that, although demands for this action have been made for nearly five years, the Government have suddenly made up their mind and acted? Can this have anything to do with an impending Election?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great affection, should have such horrid thoughts in his mind.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to amend the provisions of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, in order to increase the sums disregarded by the National Assistance Board in view of changed conditions and the changed value of money.

I have no proposals for legislation on this subject.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that since these disregards were fixed successive Governments have deemed it appropriate to increase the amount of the basic pension on several occasions? Does he not therefore think it reasonable that these disregards should be reviewed and changed?

As my hon. Friend has very fairly said, it has been the policy of successive Governments to put what money was available into improvements in the rates of assistance, with the result that all benefited, whether they had income to disregard or not.

The right hon. Gentleman was not here a moment or two earlier when some hon. Members opposite pressed him and his colleagues to bring the horticultural tariff up to a realistic figure, taking account of the increase in the cost of living. I presume that the Government will pay some attention to what their hon. Friends ask them to do at this stage. Does not the Minister realise that it has become a disincentive to saving that we have not made any changes in the amounts of these disregards since 1948?

The right hon. Gentleman is as familiar as anybody else in the House with the reasons why successive Governments have taken that line. As for the opening remarks of his supplementary question, I do not think it is any part of my duty today to answer supplementaries relating to the previous round of Questions.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mr. A. W. Cooper of 26, New Street, Aston, Birmingham, who is an old-age pensioner subsisting entirely on his retirement pension, has been refused any assistance towards the supplementary cost of his spectacles under the National Health Service.

Because, as the hon. Gentleman has already been informed, the means of this couple, even after allowance for certain special needs, will be sufficient by the standards of National Assistance after meeting the normal contribution towards the cost of spectacles.

Is it not a fact that this man is living entirely upon his retirement pension? It is true that it is a retirement pension which has been increased by increments by his working over a period, but he is living entirely on his retirement pension. Is it the Government's policy that no supplementary grant should be given in any case where the income exceeds the National Assistance standards, which are very low indeed? Secondly, is it right that the pension of this man's wife—who is living upon a pension in her own right—should be taken into consideration in the means test in assessing this matter? May I ask that people like this should be treated as generously as horticulturists?

The first and third points which the hon. Member raised go together. Both partners in this couple have a retirement pension in their own right, the husband's pension being increased by increments, as the hon. Member said. It is the general practice to take the aggregate means of the household when considering the need for assistance. When people who have a limited amount of money, but sufficient not to be in need by National Assistance standards, have to meet any charge under the National Health Service, I understand that if that charge brings them within need as assessed by the National Assistance Board, the Board will help them. I would finally point out to the hon. Member that this man had a right of appeal, and the hon. Member himself was reminded of that when the Chairman of the Assistance Board wrote to him last July. In fact, no such appeal has been made.

Will the hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friend on this matter? These are increments which are paid to the pensioner according to the Act and which have been increased, but the nation gains an enormous amount out of this scheme in increased production. Surely there is a case for treating increments as a disregard in matters of this kind.

That is an entirely different question. Even without the increments the resources of this couple were considerably above National Assistance standards.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many cases a day are heard by the Medical Appeals Tribunal sitting at Deans Yard, London, S.W.I; and at what intervals the cases are set down for hearing.

Usually about ten; cases are generally set down at 10-or 15-minute intervals.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to rush cases through as quickly as that, bearing in mind that these cases concern the pension entitlement, possibly for life, of badly disabled people? Is he further aware that, as a result of the time-table, there are very often long delays, and that they cause discontent? Would he look into this to see if the interviews can be arranged to take place at longer intervals?

As regards the hon. Gentleman's comment on the handling of cases, he will appreciate, as he has considerable experience of these matters, that it is not for me to comment on the conduct of cases by independent statutory authorities. As to the arrangements for hearings, my information is that the arrangements at the London tribunal are, on the whole, convenient for the applicants, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to take this up with me in detail, I shall be very glad to discuss it with him.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement regarding the disposal of the balance of the assets under Articles 14 and 16 of the Peace Treaty with Japan.

Yes, Sir. The balance of the Article 14 assets now expected from the Administrator of Japanese Property, plus the United Kingdom's share of the residue of the Article 16 assets which is expected from the International Committee of the Red Cross this year, is likely to amount to rather more than £200,000 in all.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision, as announced, seems to be a wise one, and likely to be widely welcomed by those who were prisoners of war or civilian internees in Japanese hands? Is he further aware that the use to which the money raised under Articles 14 and 16 has been put seems to have established the important principle that no country can ignore with impunity its obligations to prisoners of war or civilian internees under international conventions?

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. I agree with him that in dealing with this money in this way we shall be able to use it to relieve, to the maximum extent possible, hardship amongst these former Far East prisoners and internees.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what will be the total pension, the flat-rate pension remaining as at present, for a single man with a wage of £12 per week after he has paid to the proposed graded pension scheme, who reaches the age of 65 years after fifteen years' contributions to the scheme.

If the man's wages were £12 net after payment of National Insurance contributions, and he retired at the minimum pension age of 65. the pension would be £2 18s.

Is it correct to say that after forty-seven years the man will get a pension of about 70s. a week after paying a total of 10s. 10d. a week? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a man with a similar wage paying contributions for forty-seven years will get a pension of £6 14s. a week under the Labour Party proposal, taking it in conjunction with the pay-as-you-go principle?

I do not see how a question about what a man gets after forty-seven years arises out of the hon. Gentleman's Question about what a man will get after fifteen years, but no doubt the House will have the opportunity to debate the matter tomorrow.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the amount of a man's contribution that is expected to be allocated to pensions in the flat rate section out of the 8s. 4d. to be paid under proposed legislation

As the hon. Member will be aware, the proposals contained in the National Insurance Bill provide for a comprehensive system of National Insurance benefits financed on the pay-as-you-go principle. No such precise actuarial figure as is asked for in his Question is appropriate to particular benefits under the scheme, and such a figure is not, therefore, available.

Is it not correct that it has been admitted through Ministerial Answers to Questions that under the Act, at present. 4s. 11·2d. is allocated to pensions? Will it not be correct to say that under the new proposals the amount that will be allocated to pensions, under level rate payments, will be less than the 4s. 11· 2d. allocated now?

As the minimum contribution under the proposed scheme itself will be appreciably smaller than the present flat-rate contribution, I do not think it an unreasonable deduction for the hon. Gentleman to make that the amount for pension will also be less.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the renewed difficulties experienced in the county borough of Oldham by workers, who have been employed on a six-day week and owing to increasing redundancy and unemployment have been compelled to transfer to mills working short time and with a normal five-day week, in obtaining the rate of unemployment benefit to which they are entitled; and what steps he will now take to resolve this confusion.

While Parliament has placed the decision on individual claims in the hands of statutory authorities, with which I have no right to interfer, if the hon. Member has in mind any general difficulty and will let me have particulars, I will gladly look into it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I have sent him cases? There is a genuine misunderstanding here as to what the position is when a man who, in the present emergency, is compelled to leave a place where, under a Labour Government, he was working six days a week and which is now working only three, to go to a mill which was working five days a week under a Labour Government and is now working only two. There is the question of whether his income is based on a six- or a five-day week. This is a genuine problem that is constantly arising now in Oldham, which has an effective unemployment in textiles of 10 per cent.; an overall unemployment of 7 per cent.; a recession in light engineering and aviation engineering—as well as in textiles—and where the only additional work the Government have provided is the repair of the Preston by-pass.

I am aware that the question of what is known as the full-normal-extent rule can give rise to different interpretations. My invitation to the hon. Gentleman stands. If he has any general difficulty, in addition to those with which we have been in touch, I shall be only too happy to look into it, because I believe that, on both sides, we want these Regulations to work as smoothly as possible.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost of giving the full rate of widows' pension to those now only getting 10s. per week.

Up to £15 million a year at the present time.

Did not the Minister hear his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announce a moment ago that £7½ million is to be given to the horticultural industry? Would he not agree that the payment of the full amount to the 10s. widows would be even more popular at the General Election?

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's paraphrase of what was said by my right hon. Friend, but, in any event, were further money available in the social service direction generally, I doubt whether a proposal that would accentuate discrimination between the widows who have, at present, 10s., and the widows who, under present legislation, have no pension, would be a wise or equitable way of using the money.

asked the Paymaster-General (1) if he is aware that some coal merchants in Barry have been unable to obtain house-coal from their factors during the first three weeks of this year; and if he will take steps to assist them in obtaining supplies;

asked the Paymaster-General what are the reasons for an eight-weeks' delay in the supply of anthracite to the Wrekin area.

The responsibility for the distribution of house coal now rests with the National Coal Board, which will write to my hon. Friends as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend bring to the attention of the National Coal Board the fact that since these Questions were put down not only have I had a number of complaints from merchants factors, and co-operative societies in Barry and Cardiff about the quantity and, in some cases, about the quality of the coal, but I have also received complaints from a hospital that a lot of the coal it received was unusable?

That may or may not be so, but it is a matter to which my hon. Friend should draw the attention of the Coal Board.

In view of that reply, Mr. Speaker, does it now mean that Questions in respect of these particular matters will no longer be accepted at the Table?

That is rather a matter for me, and I shall have to consider exactly the import of the Answer that has been given.

I am sure that you will see the importance of this, Sir. We have, so far, always been able to raise in the House matters about the allocation of coal to the domestic consumer, and hon. Members get many complaints about this through the post. The Parliamentary Secretary's Answer would seem to mean that this is now a question for the National Coal Board. It would, therefore, be useful to us to know where we stand; whether in future the Table is to accept these Questions or whether we are to be directed to ask our questions of the Coal Board.

While you are considering that, Mr. Speaker, will you also bear in mind the change that has taken place since the abolition of rationing.

I realise the importance of the Question that has been asked. It is because of the importance of the matter that I want a little time to consider the position.

asked the Paymaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the number of cases reported in recent months whereby a faulty or broken gas pipe in the street has made possible a seepage of gas into adjoining property, thus endangering the lives of residents, often when asleep and unaware of the dangerous proximity of seeping gas; and if he will refer this matter to the Gas Council.

Yes, Sir. This problem is under close examination by the Gas Council. Gas Boards have introduced surveys to locate potentially dangerous mains, and the Gas Council is carrying out a full scale investigation to determine the causes of mains fractures and the means of reducing them.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he will invite the Gas Council to exercise particular caution in these areas in Lancashire, which are always threatened with mining subsidence? I think that stresses are set up in the earth which affect gas mains and gas pipes long before these stresses are indicated in the property above ground. I have only a hunch about this, but sometimes a good hunch is better than expert opinion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The trouble in this, as in some other matters, is that there is no complete unanimity among the experts, but the Gas Council is carrying out, as I have said, a most careful and urgent inquiry into the matter with a view to seeing that everything practicable can be done to reduce these fatalities.

Will the hon. Gentleman direct the attention, in particular, of the North-Western Gas Board to the many serious cases which have occurred in Manchester and adjacent districts recently, where many residents are fortunate to be alive today, because of these seepages?

asked the Minister of Supply how many Armstrong Whit-worth AW/660 Argosy freight aircraft have been ordered; and how many it is contemplated ordering.

asked the Minister of Supply if he is now able to make a statement about the ordering for Transport Command of a long-range jet aircraft suitable for freight and personnel carrying.

asked the Minister of Supply if he is yet able to make a statement regarding the future orders of transport aircraft for Her Majesty's forces requirements; and to what extent it is still his intention to order American transport aircraft meanwhile.

The precise number of the initial order for A.W. 660 has not yet been determined, but I think it will be between 20 and 30.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask him, if he orders between twenty and thirty of these Argosy aircraft, when the order is likely to take place and when the aircraft are likely to be delivered?

I would expect the order to be placed over the course, shall we say, of the next three months and expect delivery to begin in the year 1960.

With regard to Question No. 37, which has nothing to do with Question No. 36 as it is a different aircraft entirely, may I ask the Minister when he now expects the order to be placed? Is he aware that there is some apprehension that the order is likely to be placed for reasons other than the merit of the particular designs submitted and may I ask him whether that apprehension is justified or not? If the order has gone elsewhere than Northern Ireland, would it not be possible to look after the economic difficulties there through the means of sub-contracts?

As to the first part of the supplementary question, I would expect a statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence shortly. As to the second part, I hope that one would always take into account not only the technical merits of the design but also the capacity of the firm submitting the design to produce, which is a very important consideration.

asked the Minister of Supply what personnel he now employs at the Microbiological Research Centre and Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Salisbury Plain; and for what purpose.

It would not be in the public interest to give the figures asked for.

Has the Minister's attention been directed to the speech made last week by Sir Robert Watson-Watt in Montreal in which he said that this establishment has invented a substance, 1 lb. of which could wipe out the whole world? Does he not expect a little public interest in this? Can he tell us if any of these scientists are employed in the manufacture of typhus, cholera and polio germs, and if this is purely defensive why is it not handed over to the Minister of Health?

I think that my Answer indicated some acquaintance with the speech made in Montreal the other day by Sir Robert Watson-Watt. As a matter of fact, his statement is clearly akin to the one made as long ago as 1946. It is included in a book published in 1950—I had intended to bring it with me, but I think that I have left it in my room downstairs—to exactly the same effect. As to the purpose of the establishments, I can only repeat—and it has always been the policy of this country—that their purpose is almost entirely defensive.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the observations of Major-General Brock Chisholm of Canada about the great dangers of the policy of secrecy concerning biological warfare, and will he consider whether he cannot give the public more information about this most dangerous development in the means of war?

First of all, it is not a new development; it is quite an old development. I have seen the remarks made by Dr. Chisholm and, as I said in my main Answer, most of the results deduced from researches made at Porton are, in fact, published in open scientific literature. Indeed, the present director at the Porton establishment is in India giving a lecture on means of combating plague.

How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his first statement with what Dr. Chisholm has only recently stated?

Because I do not accept everything that Dr. Chisholm says. Indeed, as I think was apparent in my first main Answer, I think that most of what has been said both by Dr. Chisholm and Sir Robert Watson-Watt has been grossly, indeed ludicrously, exaggerated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to clarify the minds of hon. Members on this matter and to indicate at the same time that some of these experiments are intended for defence purposes, invite a number of hon. Members to visit these establishments to see for themselves what is going on?

I will sympathetically consider that suggestion.

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

asked the Minister of Supply (1) how many personnel were employed at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Bedford, and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment, Boscombe Down, on 1st January, 1958, and 1959;

It would not be in the national interest to reveal actual numbers of staff at the establishments, but over the year in question the numbers were reduced by 3·6 per cent. My right hon. Friend is always considering possible ways of achieving greater economy and efficiency but any attempt to amalgamate the three establishments at the present time would involve very heavy expenditure in the provision of buildings, plant and equipment and would seriously disrupt their work without giving adequate compensating benefits.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that a reduction of only 3·6 per cent., in view of the run-down of military aircraft, is extremely small, and will he take into account that there is a view held by people at Boscombe Down that they have not sufficient work to do and in eighteen months there will be very little work to do? Would it not be as well for him to examine this matter now with his right hon. Friend with a view to bringing about economy and saving to the taxpayers, and treat this matter on a businesslike basis?

Ministry of Supply airfields are largely engaged on research and development and there is still a heavy programme of work to be completed on current and proposed aircraft, but, as and when circumstances permit, changes will be made. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I will have a look at that.

asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made by his Department by research with aircraft and engine manufacturers into the general problem of aircraft noise, with a view to reducing engine and propeller noise at its source; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made by his Department by research with aircraft manufacturers, with a view to reducing engine and propeller noise at its source.

Propeller noise is generally not as loud or as disturbing as jet noise, but is more difficult to reduce. We are, therefore, directing our efforts mainly to the field of jet noise, where useful contributions to a solution seem more probable.

In view of the great worry caused by aircraft noise to residents living around airfields, will the Minister endeavour to increase research into this problem so that aircraft noise may be stopped at its source?

I am aware of the public concern about this matter, but it is an engineering problem of great complexity and it may be that the ultimate answer lies in new designs of engines, but I will do all I can to expedite this work.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that money is not a limiting factor in this matter?

I can give that assurance.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the number of operation cases in hospitals under his control that become infected, and to recent research as to how at least some of these misfortunes may be avoided; and what advice he proposes to give to hospitals in this connection accordingly.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recently published report from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on hospital staphylococcal infections. I am considering what steps are necessary to supplement this and other advice already brought to the notice of hospital authorities.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it is necessary to have this valuable research, and will he recommend that the results should be put into practice by hospital authorities? If they receive such a recommendation from the Minister they are much more likely to do so. The suggestion will probably imply that the necessary finance is forthcoming.

The hon. Gentleman may know that the report which I have commended to hospital authorities contains many detailed suggestions for practical preventive measures most of which, I am glad to say, can be implemented without either great expense or difficulty.

Will the Minister circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information which he intends to send to my hon. Friend, because there is tremendous concern about these matters and Members of Parliament in general should know the answer?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion but what I am sending to his hon. Friend is a copy of the recently published report. I will certainly send one also to the hon. Gentleman. I think that would be the best course.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is now prepared to issue a report on the result of his instructions to doctors on hospital stalls, coming under his authority, as to the amount they are authorised to charge for signing cremation certificates B and C;

No specific instructions have been given, but no fee is payable to doctors on hospital staffs in respect of the cremation certificate B for persons who die in hospital.

In view of the fact that cases have been reported where such fees have been charged, surely it would be to the advantage of everyone if every hospital were aware of the information that the Minister has now given?

My right hon. and learned Friend will be happy to draw the attention of hospital authorities to this question and to my reply.

asked the Minister of Health, what proposals he has for introducing amending legislation to enable patients who choose private medical treatment to have the cost of prescriptions charged against the National Health Service.

None at the moment; but the British Medical Association have asked for an early discussion on this matter and I shall, of course, give careful consideration to what they say.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no suggestion of trying to introduce what amounts to levels and standards of service in the National Health Service? This would be damaging and would destroy the whole meaning of the National Health Service itself.

I think the hon. Gentleman put the supplementary question in such general terms as not to be capable of a very precise answer. What I would say is that in considering the advice that I receive from the British Medical Association I shall, of course, bear the matter in mind in the context of the whole public interest.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House when this meeting is to take place, because it may be necessary for us as the Opposition to make representations to him on this matter?

The date for the meeting has not yet been fixed. I will, of course, bear in mind that the right hon. Lady may wish to make her views known.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement regarding the continued imposition of charges for prescriptions under the National Health Service.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the system of charging Is. for each item on a doctor's prescription has led to an increase in the cost of the prescription service, owing to the tendency of the doctors to prescribe larger quantities in order to reduce the burden on poorer patients; and whether he will consider the abolition of these charges.

These charges are being continued at present. I, of course, always keep under consideration all relevant circumstances relating to the financing of the National Health Service. In this context the additional cost due to the prescribing of larger quantities for chronic conditions must be set against the saving resulting from the substantial reduction in the number of prescriptions and the additional receipts from charges. I am satisfied that, as a result of the change in the basis of patients' charges, the burden on the Exchequer was less than it would otherwise have been.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now convinced after the report published in the Lancet, to which I am sure his attention has been directed, that this new charge is, in fact, a waste and medically it can be dangerous?

I have, of course, studied the article in the Lancet to which the hon. Gentleman refers but I think there is some misconception in that. What the article in the Lancet shows is that the drug bill for 1957 was larger than the drug bill for 1956. But that is not the material question. The material question is whether the drug bill for 1957 was as large as it would have been had we continued the old basis, and it is on that that I say a saving has been made.

Did not the Minister see that the statistical analysis in the Lancet indicated that something like 40 per cent, of the increase in the average prescription was due to the tendency of doctors to prescribe larger quantities because they wanted to avoid putting on to their poorer patients a higher bill? Does not this show that the whole policy was misconceived?

No, I do not think so. It is appropriate for doctors to prescribe large quantities in chronic cases and that is not necessarily a wasteful procedure. To meet cases of actual hardship there is, of course, a system of refund in connection with the National Assistance Board.

Besides reading the article in the Lancet, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman examined closely the analysis made by the research workers appointed by the London School of Economics?

I have not got that presently in mind, but I will refresh my memory about it.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that because of the retirement of a general practitioner in St. Marylebone and the difficulty of securing a surgery in that area it will be necessary to disperse the practice, causing inconvenience to 3,000 National Health Service patients; and what proposals he has for the provision of the necessary accommodation in such cases.

No decision has been taken to disperse this practice. The London Executive Council have re-advertised it and made it clear in their advertisement that the doctor appointed will have to be prepared to meet problems of accommodation which result from the proposed redevelopment of the area of which the previous surgery accommodation forms part. Seventy-nine applications have been received and are under consideration.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent sharp drop in the price of corticosteroid drugs to the National Health Service; and what information he has as to how far this is caused by improved manufacturing methods and how far by increased competition between manufacturers tendering to the various purchasing authorities of the National Health Service.

Yes, Sir. The decrease in price of these drugs is the result of longer experience and increased efficiency of production which, as is usual, have led to increased competition between manufacturers.