asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consideration has been given to the question of bringing the severely disabled into line with the blind and tubercular as regards a higher basic rate of National Assistance.

In view of the wide discretionary powers to increase assistance in order to meet special needs, I think that the exercise of these powers is the best way of dealing with any special problems which may arise in cases of severe disability.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that welfare officers in many local authorities who are dealing with handicapped people of this kind feel very strongly that those people who are homebound cripples should have the same treatment as those suffering from tuberculosis and blind people because they suffer the same kind of disability? Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again, and, if if it is not possible to reconsider it, would he send out a directive to the effect that the discretionary powers should be used to the fullest possible extent in respect of these people so that they are at no disadvantage whatsoever?

I have no doubt at all, as, indeed, I mentioned in the course of our debate last week, that the Board makes very full use of its discretionary powers. Indeed, I quoted figures which, I think, indicated that they are more widely exercised than ever before. The reason for singling out the two categories is, as the hon. Lady knows, largely historical, but I do not think that in practice any real difficulty arises under the present system, and I am quite sure that to attempt to list in special categories all cases of severe disability would create more anomalies than it would cure.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the need for increasing the 25s. weekly allowance to children of widows who continue their education beyond the legal school-leaving age; and what action he will take.

The allowance was increased from 21s. 6d. to 25s. a week last year and war widows receiving the allowance may qualify in addition for a rent allowance and an education allowance for school fees and expenses for each child. I do not feel that these provisions taken as a whole are ungenerous, but I am always willing to look at any individual case in which further help seems to be needed.

Would it not be much better if there were some statutory arrangement by which an allowance was available for a sixth form boy or girl so that they did not have to be denied partaking in the activities of their school fellows in or out of school, which is now the position if they are the children of a widow?

It is very difficult to generalise. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in connection with the case with which I have been in correspondence with him, there is a very considerable flexibility in this matter to which I made reference in the concluding words of my main Answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now take steps to ameliorate the conditions of old-age pensioners by seeking powers to enable municipalities and county councils to give free transport for old-age pensioners to and from their homes to the places where they receive payment of their pensions.

No, Sir. As the hon. and learned Member is no doubt aware, any pensioner unable to visit a Post Office can nominate a friend or relative to cash his orders on his behalf.

Does not the Minister, of all Ministers, realise that he owes a special duty to the old-age pensioners, who are probably the poorest class in the community today and the best producers of yesterday? Having regard to the way in which the Government have discriminated in favour of the rich, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a just and honest thing to grant old-age pensioners this small amelioration?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that the record of Her Majesty's Government in their treatment of retirement pensioners is better than that of any previous Government in British history.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons were examined by the pneumoconiosis panels in the latest year for which figures are available; what percentage of the claims was rejected; how many of those who were rejected appealed and how many had their appeals allowed; and in which areas was there no case of any appeal succeeding.

In the year ending 26th December, 1958, 15,130 persons were examined by the pneumoconiosis medical panels following claims for benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts. Of these, 54 per cent. were rejected on X-ray examination, and a further 22 per cent. were found not to be suffering from pneumoconiosis after clinical examination. In the same year, 617 appeals against disallowance on X-ray examination were dealt with and 47 were successful. Only in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area with 18 appeals was no appeal successful.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that if these figures are looked at carefully and compared with similar figures given in previous years, only a very small number of people ever appeal and of those who do appeal only an infinitesimal number seem to be successful? Is it not very disturbing for people in some areas who go to appeal feeling that they have no chance whatever because no case is ever successful?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw that deduction. Indeed, I have often heard precisely the opposite approach. The prevalence of a large number of successful appeals has often been quoted as casting a doubt on the validity of the original decision. At least in these cases that argument cannot be deployed.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what arrangements he has with the nationalised industries regarding likely shifts in the demand for labour and the likely incidence of redundancies, for example, due to closure of coal mines; and how many former employees of Douglas Castle Colliery, in the county of Lanark, are now in receipt of State assistance consequent upon this closure.

None, Sir, for such matters are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. I am informed by the National Assistance Board that no recent employees of the colliery in question are in receipt of National Assistance.

Is it not the case that a further phase of closure at this colliery is shortly coming and that there will be persons who, due to disturbance and the need to go to work elsewhere, may have reason to claim National Assistance or may in other ways be dependent on State assistance? Will my right hon. Friend keep a wary eye on the matter, as great distress has been caused to some seventy families who have moved and there are another forty or fifty who are likely to move?

I understand that redundancy in the colliery is taking place in three phases, two of which have already taken place, with the result, I am glad to say, that we have no recipients of assistance. This is no doubt due, on the one hand, to the very efficient placing activities of my right hon. Friend and, on the other hand, to the operation of the National Coal Board's redundancy scheme.

asked the Paymaster-General what number of coal miners in the North Staffordshire coalfield were certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis in simple and in complicated form for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958; and whether he will make a statement on the general trends or early diagnosis and the action taken.

In 1956, 1957 and 1958, the numbers of cases among coal miners in the north Staffordshire Area of the National Coal Board diagnosed for the first time by the pneumoconiosis medical boards were 405, 513 and 111. The great majority of these cases were diagnosed in the early stages, but, as the hon. Member knows, figures of this sort are subject to so many different factors that they cannot be taken as indicating any definite trend in the incidence of the disease. Separate figures of simple and complicated pneumoconiosis are not available area by area.

Would it be fair to assume from those figures that the dramatic fall in 1958 may be due to the case taking and the vigour with which this matter was investigated in previous years, when there was, of course, a steep rise? May we assume that everything will be done to ensure that every case is diagnosed as early as possible and that any with the complication of tuberculosis will be removed from the coalfield?

I would agree with the hon. Member that the figures are encouraging. I can tell him further that out of the last 111 only five were diagnosed at more than 30 per cent. disability, and so I think there is some indication that the work is being carried on successfully.

asked the Paymaster-General what action is being taken in the North Staffordshire coalfield to discover cases of pulmonary tuberculosis among miners; and with what success.

In adition to the work of the mass miniature radiography units operating under the National Health Service the National Coal Board have now introduced their scheme for the periodic chest X-ray of mineworkers. The Board's West Midlands unit has already started work in the North Staffordshire coalfield; but it is too early to make any statement on the results.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the mass radiography investigation, which did such excellent work for a number of years, is now to cease in respect of the North Staffordshire miners? Can he give an assurance that the work will be taken over by the National Coal Board and that there will be periodic examinations of all miners in the coal pits?

I think—I will confirm it—that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. My recollection is that at a recent meeting of the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee, at which I was in the chair, the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Health agreed to co-operate as far as possible to ensure overlapping, thus reducing the time between examination. However, if the hon. Gentleman would care to get in touch with me I will look into the matter.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the progress made in carrying through the recommendation of the Robson Committee on coal distribution that retail depots should be concentrated, giving the number and names of appointed representatives for the preparation of schemes, divided according to allegiance to co-operative societies, private traders and the National Coal Board.

asked the Paymaster-General what consideration his Department has given to the recommendation contained in Command Paper No. 446, that to improve coal distribution there should be a concentration of trade into a smaller number of larger depots; and if he will make a statement.

My noble Friend brought the Robson Committee Report to the attention of the coal trade and a number of schemes are under discussion between them and the railways. We are still awaiting their considered views.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a recommendation of the Robson Committee that this should be done within twelve months and that it is now twelve months since that Committee reported? Cannot the Department hurry the matter up?

It does not rest only with the Department. We have set the machinery in motion. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the co-operative society representative—not private enterprise—has pointed out that there are extreme difficulties in the matter, and they have to be considered very carefully if the schemes are to be of any use. One of the troubles is that the schemes are likely to produce any saving only in big towns, and that is precisely where the possibility of the Clean Air Act making large capital expenditure unremunerative is a factor. However, the discussions are proceeding as quickly as possible.

asked the Paymaster-General what general direction he has given to the National Coal Board concerning the cost of coal supplied to the Gas Council.

None, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the difference in quality and price of coal supplied to the generating stations compared with that supplied to the gas industry? Has he received any complaint from the Gas Council about the price of coal?

Of course, the views of the purchaser and the seller of any commodity do not always exactly agree. These are commercial matters which are discussed between the two nationalised industries concerned. I do not think I can go further than that.

asked the Paymaster-General what percentage of shale is permissible under his regulations in coke sold for domestic consumption.

There are no such regulations.

Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the public would be much relieved if they felt assured that they were getting value for their money when buying coke produced by the nationalised gas industry?

That is very true, but, of course, for practical purposes all the shale that is in coal supplied to the gas industry has to remain in the coke, and the proportion then is actually higher because one produces less than one ton of coke from a ton of coal. Therefore, the main responsibility is with the National Coal Board, which is doing a great deal. It is spending £20–£30 million a year on trying to improve the quality of its coal. However, I think we are all agreed that we should like the progress to be even faster.

asked the Paymaster-General what was the total reduction in the consumption of coal for the 23 weeks of this year ended 20th June; what was the balance of production over consumption for the same period; and what is the estimated balance of production over consumption at the end of the 50-week period beginning on 5th January, 1959.

Coal consumption, including exports, in the 23 weeks to 13th June, 1959, was 8·6 million tons less than in the first 23 weeks of 1958. The excess of production over consumption was 3·6 million tons and may be about 7 million tons for the year as a whole.

Is it not correct that in 1957 there was a fall in inland consumption of 5 million tons and in 1958 a fall of 10 million tons and that in the 23 weeks so far this year there has been a fall of 8·5 million tons? If we assume the same average reduction for the rest of the year, there will be a reduction of a further 10 million tons. This will mean that between 1956 and 1959 there will have been a fall of 33·5 million tons. Does that not create a serious situation? Is it also not correct that, allowing for the increased production per man, it takes about 3,200 workers to produce 1 million tons of coal? Therefore, does not the fall in demand of 33·5 million tons since 1956 create a serious position in the coal industry? Does the hon. Gentleman think—

Order. That is much too long for a supplementary question.

I want to add another sentence, if you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. Gentleman had better leave it at that.

It is not possible to go into a statistical exercise of that length in reply to a supplementary question.

asked the Paymaster-General the total consumption of saleable coal in 1958.

The total is 207·7 million tons, including exports.

asked the Paymaster-General how much less was the total output of saleable coal, including opencast coal, and of opencast coal, respectively, during the 24 weeks ended 20th June, 1959, than during the comparable period in 1958.

Deepmined output was less by 3½ million tons, or 3 per cent., and opencast by 620,000 tons, or 10 per cent. In recent weeks opencast has been 25 per cent. less than a year ago.

Is it right that the reduction in opencast production is less by only about 550,000 tons, when we were promised a reduction of 3 million tons in a year? At the rate that opencast mining is being reduced at the moment, in a year it will reduce output by only 1¼ million tons. Is there something peculiar about the present position or can we have any guarantee that there will be a reduction of 3 million tons so far as opencast mining is concerned?

Part of the discrepancy is perhaps due to the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that when comparing the figures as far as deep mines were concerned Saturday working was still being worked early last year. That accounts for about 90 per cent. of the cut in deep-mined output. As regards opencast, broadly speaking, we have every reason to suppose that the planned reduction will take place this year.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent prospecting for opencast coal is still continuing; and in which counties.

The National Coal Board is at present prospecting about 56,000 acres in twenty-two counties to gain information on the reserves available. I am circulating a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Having regard to the fact that stocks of coal are rising week by week, can the hon. Gentleman say why prospecting continues to take place when we are in the position of having overproduction of coal?

I think I have already answered the Question. Whatever views we may have about opencast mining, these resources are or may be valuable reserves. Surely it is common sense to find out exactly what and where the reserves are in case we want them. If we do not start prospecting until we want the coal we might have a crisis before we find it.

asked the Paymaster-General how many new authorisations for the working of opencast coal have been granted since opencast mining was governed by the Opencast Coal Act. 1958.

None, Sir.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the nine opencast coal sites in Lancashire will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the 29 opencast coal sites in Derbyshire will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the five opencast coal sites in Scotland will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the four opencast coal sites in Nottinghamshire will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the 14 opencast coal sites in Yorkshire will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the 16 opencast coal sites in Wales and Monmouthshire will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

asked the Paymaster-General when he estimates the 14 opencast coal sites in Durham will cease working on completion of the tasks now authorised.

As already announced, the National Coal Board is arranging a drastic reduction in opencast production and is working out the details for each individual site.

We have heard that answer before. It shows that the Government are not making any progress towards the cessation of opencast working. When will the tasks already authorised be completed? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that within the last 19 years people in Lancashire, particularly in my constituency, have been experiencing great discomfort, trouble and anxiety from opencast working? Surely, we can be told when the existing opencast sites will be concluded. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on Saturday of last week, prospecting was started on another site, although he had told us that it would finish altogether?

We have already dealt with prospecting in a previous Question. Concerning the sites already being worked, surely the hon. Member will appreciate that, in a large programme of this nature, once it has been decided to make drastic reductions a whole series of complicated and detailed negotiations must take place for every individual site. The Coal Board is still engaged in that process. That is why the Board cannot give the dates when the sites all over the country will cease operating.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are apprehensive about this? We recognise the need for negotiating opencast contracts, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Durham there are large collieries involving huge capital expenditure that will close? Can we not run down the opencast sites and save the deep miner in County Durham?

The Question asked on what date these sites would cease. We are not discussing the principle.

asked the Paymaster-General what projects of research on human problems within the coal mining industry are at present being undertaken; and to what extent they receive assistance from his Department.

The National Coal Board now has in hand 12 projects of research on human and medical problems in the coal mining industry. Government Departments are co-operating in several of these projects.

Is the Minister aware that in a major industry like the mining industry one is bound to have these human problems and that everything ought to be done to accommodate the people inside the industry when we are faced with these great issues. One has to admit that there is no easy answer to these problems, but does the Minister not think that his Department ought to take a greater interest in this matter than it has been doing in the last few years?

I am not sure that there is any evidence that the Department under different parties has not taken very active steps in this matter. I should have thought on the whole that, since nationalisation, the record of the coal industry in these matters was one of the more satisfactory sides of its affairs.

asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the prevailing high rate of miners still contracting industrial dust diseases, whether he will consider issuing a general direction making it compulsory for all underground workers to be periodically subjected to X-ray examinations.

No, Sir, but my noble Friend hopes that as many miners as possible will, in their own interest, take advantage of the National Coal Board's voluntary scheme for periodical X-ray examinations.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to fob it off on to his noble Friend, but will the Paymaster-General institute periodic examinations of men working underground, say, every six or twelve months? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that Lancashire, and other counties too, are very disturbed about the number of miners suffering from chest complaints? Has he read the report recently issued by the Lancashire and Cheshire Permanent Relief Society which indicates a high incidence of men suffering from dust diseases such as emphysema. Will he not take active steps with a view to instituting these examinations?

The hon. Gentleman's Question asks whether we will make these examinations compulsory. It is our view, and that of the National Union of Mineworkers, that these things are best left on a voluntary basis. As a matter of fact, the numbers taking part in this sort of thing are highly satisfactory and of the order of 80 per cent.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Coal Board to ascertain whether our fears are correct that results of those examinations show a growth in the incidence of emphysema amongst miners? Has the time not come to review the whole situation and bring emphysema within the schedule of prescribed diseases?

That is a different point which I should not like to answer offhand, but I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's Question.

asked the Paymaster-General to what extent his Department is encouraging a greater advertising campaign of the approved smokeless fuels and their respective domestic burning appliances.

My noble Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are encouraging the promotion of clean air by all appropriate means including advertising campaigns on the subject by many local authorities. The advertising of particular products must, however, remain the concern of individual manufacturers.

Whilst appreciating the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, may I ask whether he is not aware of the utmost necessity for the strictest collaboration between these people? It is a question not only of higher grades but of the utilisation and purchase of materials. Many local authorities throughout the country are developing sites regardless of the existing sites. The closest co-operation would be of great advantage to the industry.

If the hon. Member has any specific suggestions for improving the present close co-operation, I shall be very happy to consider them.

asked the Paymaster-General what general direction he has given to the National Coal Board to review its coal preparation methods, especially of small coal.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of the large amount of stocks of this kind of coal, particularly in the East Midlands, amounting, I understand, to 8 million tons? Could not his Department and the Coal Board get together to see whether something useful could be done?

This is primarily the business of the National Coal Board which, on the whole, is not doing too badly in the matter. The Board must find new methods, if there are any, before it can improve what it is doing now. It cannot simply be done by a committee saying, "Let us have better prepared coal".

asked the Paymaster-General what consideration he has given to the need to give general directions to the National Coal Board to strengthen its marketing department, and particularly its sales service.

My noble Friend does not regard this subject as appropriate to a general direction. The National Coal Board is taking steps to strengthen its marketing department, and particularly its technical sales service, but the matter is so important that it is constantly under review.

Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that his right hon. Friend is satisfied with what is taking place concerning the problem of foreign sales? Does he not agree that every possible assistance should be given so that we may be able to regain some of our pre-war markets? What is being done concerning home sales of this vital commodity, which has so important a rôle in the country's economy?

As I have said before, this is primarily a matter for the Coal Board, which is strengthening its marketing arrangements. Neither the Board nor the Ministry, however, is satisfied that the present position is perfect. Again, if anybody can suggest specific changes in the Board's arrangements, I am certain that the Board would be happy to consider them. The Board is, however, well aware of the need to sell coal if it possibly can, and I do not think that it needs any prodding from the Ministry.

asked the Paymaster-General the present figure of distributed and undistributed stocks of coal, giving details of opencast coal stocks, general purpose coals and coking coals.

At 13th June, 1959, distributed stocks were 14·5 million tons and undistributed stocks 26·8 million tons, of which 6·3 million tons were at opencast sites. The undistributed stocks included 4 million tons of carbonisation coal, the great bulk of the remainder being general purposes coals.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the coal situation is getting more serious week by week? Is it not now time that the Government declared what place the coal industry will have in the economy, or are we to contemplate more closures at the end of the year as stocks continue to rise?

As I think the hon. Member knows, the Coal Board is reconsidering the whole of its plan for the next few years. The report has not yet been presented to the Ministry. As soon as it is, it will, of course, be carefully considered. Once again, however, the initiative and the responsibility in this matter have been placed by Parliament firmly upon the Coal Board, and it is up to the Board in the first place to say what it thinks will happen and what it wants. As soon as that is done, it is up to the Ministry to consider it, and it will be considered at once.

As the rise in the stocks of coal is greater than was anticipated and forecast by the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary in our last debate, is it the Government's intention to review once again the size of the opencast coal programme and also the reversion to coal utilisation by the power stations which are now being converted to oil?

Unless I misunderstood him, the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. An estimate was given of probable stocks at the end of the year, but no estimate has been officially given for the situation in the middle of the year. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, conditions change completely after the summer. Broadly speaking, we have no reason to suppose that the figures for the end of the year will not be reasonably accurate.

asked the Paymaster-General how many coke ovens have closed during the last twelve months; what further run-down is visualised; and to what extent he envisages an effect on the Durham coalfield.

Since June, 1958, five plants have been closed and one new oven has been opened. The National Coal Board has taken no decision about further closures but is reviewing the position including the effects on the Durham coalfield in the light of the demand for hard coke.

Is the Minister aware that the County of Durham is threatened with serious unemployment, not only because of the closure of coke ovens, but because of the Gas Council's decision to use oil instead of coal and the fact that its estimate of coal usage has now dropped by 7 million tons?

Speaking about what has happened so far, I am happy to inform the hon. Member that in the case of the ovens which have been closed in Durham, my latest figure shows that less than 42 people are now unemployed as a result of the closures.

asked the Paymaster-General what recent developments have taken place in the research on high pressure gasification of coal.

I suggest the hon. Member awaits the report of the Committee on Coal Derivatives, the setting up of which was announced on 16th April.

Are we likely to have this report in the near future? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this development can be very important indeed to the mining industry? May I have an assurance that his Ministry will give all help possible, both materially and spiritually, to this side of the industry, as we think that it will play a great part in keeping some of our miners at work?

I agree with what, I think, the hon. Member has in mind—that if we can make a success of high-pressure gasification of coal great possibilities will be opened up both for the gas industry and for the coal industry. It is not, however, an easy matter. It is a tricky and rather modern process and one cannot hurry it. The scientists must simply be left to see whether they can solve the problem. I hope they can.

Should not the scientists be given greater resources in order to accelerate the programme? Can the Minister assure us that this experiment will not be closed down as the underground gasification experiment was closed down?

It will be closed down, as that experiment was closed down, if the experts come to the conclusion that it is no good. Hon. Members on this side of the House are not in favour of continuing to spend money even when we have no reason to suppose that we shall get anything for it.

Is it not extremely unwise to save a little sum on research when we might achieve a great economic result by going on with an experiment?

In this case not a penny which has been asked for has been refused, because we still think it is a very hopeful programme. But we shall not go on spending money on it if the committee and all the experts concerned come to the conclusion, with great disappointment, that it is a non-starter.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the National Coal Board regarding the conditions which will determine the closing of pits during 1960.

None, Sir.

Can we assume from that Answer that no pits will be closed during 1960? If not, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us by what criteria decisions are made? Are they made on profits per ton, the quality of the coal, or the state of the market?

The hon. Member must not read into my Answer anything of the sort. Whether or not further economic closures will take place is one of the main questions which will have to be decided when the Coal Board's new proposals reach the Ministry. The considerations mentioned by the hon. Member are certainly among those which the Coal Board and the Ministry—and. I hope, the country—will have to take into account.

Is it not a fact that the Ministry is already aware of the pits which are likely to close down in 1960?

As yet we have had no proposals from the Coal Board relating to particular pits.

How long must we await the proposals which the Parliamentary Secretary has told us are coming from the Coal Board?

As yet we have had no information as to exactly when the Coal Board will be in a position to give us its proposals.

If the Minister has had no information, does he know that it is common knowledge in the industry that a large number of pits will be closed during 1960? To what extent are the Government now prepared to increase the amount by which they undertook to stock coal—that is, the 3 million tons—if there is a greater surplus this year, as present figures seem to indicate?

The right hon. Gentleman must not ask me to confirm any alleged leak which he says has taken place from the Coal Board.

Do I gather that the Minister thinks it is now inevitable that there will be some pit closures in 1960? Is his Ministry consulting the President of the Board of Trade to ensure that men who may be rendered redundant—who have rendered great service to this country in war and peace, and who gave up Saturday work at the request of the Government and the country, and deserve the best of it—will be provided with alternative employment? Does he say that his Ministry is not in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to making sure that if there is no economic future for certain pits alternative employment will be provided in the communities built up by the miners in those pits over the years?

I do not see how that speech arises out of the Question. I was asked about general directions having been given to the National Coal Board. I was not asked about consultations, or anything else.

Do we understand that when the stage is reached for the Coal Board to announce that because of the circumstances described this afternoon further closures are inevitable, the Ministry will not immediately take up with other Departments the question of alternative employment?

If, after the Coal Board makes suggestions and they have been approved by the Ministry in due course, there are further closures, what has happened in the past will happen again and, I hope, with the same resounding success which has already met the Coal Board's efforts to minimise unemployment.

Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Coal Board, with his great experience in this industry, is not the sort of man to make any proposal for the closure of a pit without the most careful consideration of human as well as other factors?

Precisely.

asked the Paymaster-General what consultations he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the inclusion of coal as an exchange commodity in bilateral agreements with foreign countries.

My noble Friend is in constant touch with his colleagues about increasing our export markets for coal by all available means.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that our coal exports could be increased by a discreet use of the bilateral agreements? Is he taking note of what other coal-producing countries are achieving in this matter?

The question of bilateral agreements raises questions of Government policy going far beyond my Department. If the hon. Member wants to raise any points on bilateral agreements he should address his Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such Questions are not for me.

asked the Paymaster-General what forms of denationalisation for the coal industry are being considered by his Department, including the management of groups of pits by private directors.

None, Sir.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a Member of the Government—namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works—put forward this proposal in a public speech on 19th June? Is that speech to be taken seriously as evidence of Government policy, or was it just a piece of typical junior Ministerial nonsense?

Like all speeches made my Members of the Government, it should be taken seriously—more seriously than the Question of the hon. Member, who apparently did not know that, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the suggestion, it was made clear in that speech that no question of denationalisation arose.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that Questions to the Paymaster-General come first next week and that experience of recent weeks has shown that there are likely to be 40 or more Questions then, as there are today, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that before next week you give consideration to the working of the rule whereby Questions of day-to-day administration of nationalised industries cannot be asked in Parliament if they have been asked in a similar sense and refused by the Minister some time before? Is the rule being relaxed in any regard? If it is, there are hon. Members on this side of the House who would wish to ask Questions about railways and electricity.

I can assure the noble Lord that the rule has not been relaxed in any way at all.

asked the Paymaster-General what dangers exist in connection with the storage of liquid methane and its use as a gas for heating purposes; and what precautions are being taken to avoid these dangers.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will give details of the dangers inherent in the new experiment of the transportation and storage of liquid methane.

The only respect in which liquid methane is more difficult to handle than any other light petroleum product is the need to take special precautions against the effect of very low temperatures on the properties of metal. The tanker and storage tanks used in connection with the experimental shipments have been specially designed after extensive research to ensure safe handling, and have been approved for this purpose by the appropriate authorities. In use methane gas is as safe as ordinary town gas with which it is mixed.

May I ask the Minister two questions? First, is there any danger of liquid methane exploding in storage? Secondly, is it quite clear that there is no greater danger to health if methane gas mixed with coal gas is used for heating and escapes, as compared with ordinary coal gas?

As regards the second question, coal gas contains substantial quantities of methane. The answer substantially is that there is no difference in danger. With regard to the first question, the tanks in which the gas is stored are remote and carefully placed in the light of experience. They are surrounded by earth bunds so that in the event of a breakage burning substance would not flow all over the place but would be contained. One cannot say that there are no possibilities of risk in any of these industrial processes, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that very careful steps have been taken to minimise the danger.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a recent meeting of the gas industry? The impression given at the meeting was that despite the dangers of this experiment it is bound to be a success. Personally I do not deplore that, but I am concerned to hear that because of the possible success of this experiment the Gas Council plan to go it alone. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this is a rather chaotic situation when large fuel industries go shooting off at a tangent with their own policies rather than the Minister taking action to bring them together and get a co-ordinated fuel policy?

I do not think that arises. These Questions are about safety.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the amount of money already spent on the proposal, now abandoned, to modify certain civil nuclear power stations for the production of military plutonium including all research, design and development charges; and what is the anticipated cost of the military plutonium modifications at Hinkley Point nuclear power station which it is proposed to complete.

The payments to be made in respect of the modifications at Hinkley Point, and of any nugatory expenditure incurred elsewhere, will be the subject of negotiations and I regret that I cannot yet say what the cost will be.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a year ago in an Adjournment debate I argued that this modification was unnecessary and wasteful? I was thoroughly rebuked by the hon. Gentleman for my trouble. Is the hon. Gentleman now quite certain that the modification must be carried out at Hinkley Point, and will he in future not be quite so cocksure?

It was not a question of being cocksure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not followed these matters with his usual care. A great deal has happened since then. In particular, there has been a highly successful agreement between the Governments of the United States and this country from which we are busily engaged in obtaining great benefits. Because of a reconsideration of the whole situation we have made sensible modifications in the policy. We do not stay put for ever.

asked the Paymaster-General the estimated net import of fuel oil during the first half of this year, as compared with the corresponding period of 1958.

About 750,000 tons compared with 660,000 tons last year.

asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given to the Gas Council concerning the continuation of the Lurgi plant at Westfield.

None, Sir

Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to explain the economic wisdom of investing £6½ million in a plant which is to take opencast coal from a new site on a 20-year contract when millions of tons of opencast coal are in stock, with the net result that 1,500 miners will be thrown out of work?

This was a peculiarly attractive site, details of which are known to the hon. Member. There is no doubt that it will produce gas at a particularly favourable price. The gas board concerned has no doubt that this will open up markets which otherwise it would not be able to get.

asked the Minister of Supply how many of the 1,250,000 surplus Army boots have so far been sold; to which countries they have gone; what is the total amount realised; and by how much this falls short of the cost of the boots to the taxpayer.

Six hundred and forty-four thousand, one hundred and ten pairs of boots have been sold. About one-third are going to buyers in U.S.A., France, Italy, Germany and Rhodesia. The destination of the rest is a matter for the exporters who bought from the Ministry. While the average sale price was less than the estimated original cost, I regret that for commercial reasons I cannot disclose the prices realised.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the surplus boots, or most of them, became surplus because of a blunder? When it has already been announced in the House that the boots cost the taxpayer nearly £2 a pair, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much we have got for these boots, so that we may know how much money has been wasted? It must be a very large sum of money.

I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Member—

Why not?

—because I have further boots to sell. To disclose to him the prices already realised would prejudice the best price to be obtained for those still to be sold, and that would be detrimental to the taxpayers' interests.

When the sale is completed, will he be able to tell us what the boots have realised so that we can see how much money has been lost to the taxpayer.

Provided I am satisfied that there is no good commercial reason against giving the hon. Member the information asked for, I shall be delighted to give it.

If the Government purchases these boots at a certain price and sells them for another price, either privately or otherwise, surely the House is entitled to know? This is public money. Will not the Minister undertake to let my hon. Friend know when he is ready to give the information, so that the House may know what has happened to these public resources and how far this Government are to be trusted with public money at all?

Certainly the House is entitled to know at some juncture. The only point of my answer was that it would prejudice the public purse to disclose that information prematurely, and I think that is still the case.

asked the Minister of Supply why a delay of one year took place before a development contract for the Hovercraft was given after the vehicle had been demonstrated to his Department by the designer.

asked the Minister of Supply how far he is concerned with the development for military purposes of the Saunders Roe Hovercraft.

The nine months which elapsed between the demonstration by Mr. Cockerell and the placing of a design study contract by the Ministry of Supply were occupied in finding a contractor who was prepared to undertake the work and in studies by him, by my own experts and by Mr. Cockerell of the most practicable method of proceeding. Possible military applications of the Hovercraft are being studied.

My right hon. Friend is denying that there was a year's delay, as is claimed by the inventor. In view of the fact that the Germans, Americans and Swiss are developing similar principles, would not he agree that every effort should be made to catch up any time which may have been lost?

I certainly deny that there was a year's delay. Indeed, my Department got in touch with possible contractors three days after the demonstration. To the best of my knowledge, the lines on which the Americans are working are somewhat different. None the less, I entirely agree that it would be highly desirable that this development should go forward with all possible speed.

Does the Minister remember the Minister of Defence told us that the Government had not yet decided whether this was an aircraft or a ship? If they decide it is a ship, will the matter be transferred from his Department to the Admiralty and shall we have more delay and more "buck-passing"?

I understood that it was the point of the Question that the Hovercraft at the moment was neither the particular concern either of my Department or the Admiralty. At the moment, it is the concern of the Board of Trade and the sponsor is the National Research and Development Corporation.

asked the Minister of Supply what progress is being made in the development of the Fairey Rotodyne helicopter airliner; what prospects there are of it being used in inter-city travel in this country; and in what way Government Departments are helping the manufacturers to overcome inevitable difficulties of production at this stage.

Earlier this year the Rotodyne prototype set up a world speed record for convertiplanes, and it has just been successfully demonstrated at the Paris Air Show, Brussels and to SHAPE. British European Airways has indicated its intention of buying Rotodynes, subject to agreement on final specification and financial terms, with a view to operating inter-city helicopter services; and there is keen interest among overseas operators. As I announced to the Press on 5th March, I reached agreement with the Fairey Aviation Company some time ago on the extent of further Government support for this project. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence announced on 3rd June, the possibility of a military requirement is being examined.

Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the dissatisfaction of aircraft firms, including the manufacturers of the Rotodyne, at the poor support given by this Government, in contrast to what has happened in other countries? Will he say when this so-called Government of businessmen will really wake up and do something to help aircraft manufacturers, particularly in this matter?

That question is rather removed from the original Question on the Order Paper, but I think it is entitled to this answer: certainly Government support for the aircraft industry is a matter of considerable moment and importance, but I believe that the hon. Member would be deluding himself if he thought that the troubles of the aircraft industry were due entirely, or even mainly, to the paucity of Government support.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that those who live near the place where the Rotodyne is being made are concerned about the noise which it makes when it is in the air? In developing this contract, will he take steps to see that every possible effort is made to silence the engines of this machine?

My Department is cooperating with the company in an endeavour to find a solution to the noise problem.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) how many dogs, cats, pigs and sheep are at present undergoing experiments at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment;

asked the Minister of Supply (1) what proportion of the experiments on animals at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment are carried out without anæsthetics;

asked the Minister of Supply (1) how many cats were used at the microbiological station at Porton during the last year;

asked the Minister of Supply what is the total number of dogs and cats that have been experimented upon by the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment since its inception.

I would refer hon. Members to the answers given on 26th January and 22nd June to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) on 22nd June.

As the Minister has bunched all these Questions together, may I first ask him to indicate whether arrangements may be made for hon. Members who are interested to visit the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment and see what is going on there? Secondly, will he say why hon. Members were not allowed to see the animals and the experiments going on at the Microbiological Research Establishment? Thirdly, will he indicate—the figures do not reveal this—whether there are any monkeys at the Establishment, because one escaped and had to be shot? In view of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this gruesome business, is it not time that there was an independent inquiry into the whole affair?

I am not sure that I shall be able to remember all those questions—

I cannot remember all the answers, either.

As to the first question, I will consider the suggestion about allowing hon. Members to go to the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment. Regarding the second question, about why hon. Members who recently visited the Microbiological Research Establishment did not see the animal wing, the short answer is that none of the visitors was immunised and immunisation is a necessary condition for visiting the wing. As to the more general questions posed by my hon. Friend, none of us really wants to undertake these experiments, but the plain fact—which I think the hon. Gentleman must accept—is that no effective progress can be made against biological and chemical weapons without experiments on animals. But we must endeavour to minimise cruelty to the utmost possible extent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that anxiety about these experiments is by no means confined to those who oppose vivisection? Regarding Question No. 63, which my right hon. Friend said he was answering with the others, is he aware that so far as I can see he has not answered any part of that Question and that it was not answered in other Answers to which he referred? If my right hon. Friend is unable to give the information now, will he add it to what is to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I would refer him to the Answer I gave on 22nd January to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). That is an Answer which may possibly have escaped him

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only thing about this establishment of which we are certain is that George Washington would never have got a job on the staff? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman state in his Answer to me last week that there were monkeys being experimented on? Is he aware that when we visited this microbiological place we were told that monkeys were being experimented on but the source of supply was dried up at the time of Suez? Is he aware that a scientist indicated that the drying-up of the supply of monkeys could be a tragedy for the whole place? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman gave facilities to hon. Members to visit this animal department? Is he aware that when we asked to see the department we were bluffed and brushed off and told we could not go there; that the arrangements were so sanitary and that hon. Members might catch plague?

No monkeys were mentioned in the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman last week or the week before for the very simple reason that the hon. Gentleman asked me for figures of experiments over a certain period and the period mentioned by him in the Question was one in which no monkeys were experimented on.

Oh.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he, the Government and most members of the Opposition feel that it is imperative for the future of mankind that experiments should be conducted on cats, dogs and monkeys and the like rather than on men, women and children.

I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for that question. If that was not already evident in the Answers given, may I make it evident now?

Could the right hon. Gentleman furnish the House with a White Paper about the activities of both the chemical and biological research stations in order that hon. Members might know something about the kind of warfare which is being prepared for and paid for by the taxpayers' money?

If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the answers I have given to Questions on this matter over recent months, I think he will come to the conclusion that, consistently within the limits of security, I have given all possible information on both establishments.

The Prime Minister.

On a point of order. If I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply aright, he referred me to a Question asked by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 22nd June, but—

22nd January.

I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon.

The Prime Minister.