asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that in September the price for tomatoes to the grower fell to 2s. for 12 lb., whereas the cost of production is about 9s. for 12 lb.; and what steps he intends to take to protect producers from losses of this kind.

In early September, market prices for tomatoes were low, ranging from 2s. to 12s. for 12 lb. according to quality, but the cost of production must be compared with returns for the season as a whole. The seasonal tariff is designed to give producers reasonable protection from excessive imports. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is answering a later Question on the subject of the tomato tariff.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give no comfort to tomato producers who, this year, have had a most appalling season due to very low prices? If they are to grow tomatoes next year, they want some guarantee from the Government that there is a reasonable chance that the most efficient producers will be able to cover their costs?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the Order Paper dealing with the question of the tariff. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is wiser to wait for that Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider introducing a deficiency payment scheme for tomatoes along the lines of that prevailing for barley.

No, Sir. It would not be possible to apply to tomatoes a deficiency payments scheme on the lines of that which applies to barley because, as my hon. Friend will realise, there are fundamental differences in the nature of the two crops.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling among horticulturists that they are not being treated as fairly as farmers or industrialists with regard to protection and the whole problem of marketing, and that if he cannot persuade his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do something about the tariff, perforce we look to something like a deficiency payment to rescue the position of tomato producers?

My hon. Friend knows full well that what I have said is true. Tomatoes are very perishable products. I think my hon. Friend will also agree that the Government, like himself, are very conscious of the need to do what we can to help marketing. That is why certain discussions are going on in the House at the moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend seems to be very keen about private enterprise so long as it is subsidised from public funds?

No. My hon. Friend asked a perfectly reasonable question to which I tried to give a reasonable reply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the implementation of the Heneage Report of 1951.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement upon the action the Government propose to take following upon his discussions with the associations concerned about the Heneage Report on Land Drainage.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the Heneage Committee Report on Land Drainage.

I am glad to say that, as a result of discussions with them, agreement was reached between the four main Associations concerned, namely, the River Boards' Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities, the National Farmers' Union, and the Country Landowners' Association, on the principles which should be adopted for dealing with the main land drainage problems considered in the Heneage Report.

May I congratulate the Minister on at last, after eight years, having made up his mind about what he will do? Is he aware that this is a very fortunate occasion, because it is the thirteenth time I have asked a Question about the implementation of the Heneage Report? No doubt farmers in South Yorkshire who have been expecting action for a long time will consider this their lucky day, too.

I am glad that the hon. Member is occasionally lucky. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the bodies concerned, and I think the hon. Member will agree that it is much better when these things can be done after consultation and agreement.

While congratulating the Minister and the bodies concerned on reaching agreement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say anything about when he anticipates this legislation will be introduced?

I cannot do that, but I think that we could have a full discussion on the matter when the White Paper is available to the House.

Can my right hon. Friend at least say that the legislation will be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, so that it can come into law before next winter? We have already had nine winters since the Heneage Report was issued.

I could not possibly forecast what the Parliamentary timetable will allow. Hon. Members must be satisfied with what I have said.

Will the legislation also cover the points on water conservation and the spreading of drainage rates, as asked for in the Motion put down for "An early day", signed by my hon. Friends and myself?

It would be much better to await the White Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the date when it ceased to be necessary under his Regulations for all unfit meat from slaughterhouses and all meat from knackers' yards to be stained before leaving the premises, in an effort to ensure that it did not find its way for human consumption.

2nd July, 1954.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it scandalous that under the old Ministry of Food the public were protected by the sterilisation and colouring of meat, that under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, the appropriate Ministers were given power to introduce regulations and that in 1956 the Ministry undertook to introduce them as a matter of great urgency and importance, but that nothing has been done? Which vested interests are preventing the Ministry from giving the public the protection which it deserves?

That goes a little beyond the Question. I remind the hon. Member that it was much easier to control these matters when we had very small supplies of meat than now, when there is plenty for everyone. The hon. Member must also not forget that the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, provided heavy penalties for people who purveyed infected meat for human consumption.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary face the difficulties and stop being flippant about this? There is a good deal of public concern about this matter. An undertaking was given that an order would be made. We realise that there were difficulties—they were discussed in the House—but, surely, it is time we were told that the Government were in a position to lay another Order.

I reject at once any charge of flippancy, which is wholly unfounded. There are other Questions on the Order Paper relating to this matter; I ask the hon. Member to await them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for introducing regulations to govern the sale of condemned meat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to carry out the undertaking, given on his behalf in this House on 26th February last, to introduce regulations for the disposal of unfit meat from slaughterhouses and knackers' yards.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the disposal of meat which is unfit for human consumption; and what steps he is taking to improve the position.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when regulations are to be introduced to protect the public in respect to the disposal of meat condemned at slaughterhouses and knackers' yards.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce legislation to control the sale of condemned meat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to protect the public in regard to sales of meat unfit for human consumption.

This is a matter on which there is a considerable variation of opinion in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and I are examining the numerous representations we have had on this subject.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to be so evasive on this issue? He has been examining the prospect of regulations for nearly nine months. Will he tell us in clear, unadulterated language the nature of the representations which have been made to him which prevent him from tabling regulations to govern the sale of unfit food?

The hon. Member could not have been present in the House when there was considerable discussion of this matter and many points were put forward, some suggesting that the regulations should be tighter and some suggesting that they should be altered. Those are all worthy of detailed consideration, which is what I am giving to the matter.

Although it is correct, as the Minister says, that there was a conflict of opinion on 26th February when this matter was discussed, was it not a fact that there was great pressure from this side of the House to introduce stringent regulations and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a promise that regulations would be introduced? Why has that promise not been carried out?

The hon. Member is not completely accurate. What my hon. Friend said was that more time was required to enable the regulations

"to be put in a form such as will cause the least possible hardship to those concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 1448.]

I have the copy of HANSARD with me, too.

Is the Minister aware that a great many reputable traders in the meat trade are concerned that high standards will be maintained and that these traders include particularly the co-operative societies? In his examination of the problem, will the Minister keep in touch with them?

Naturally, I am considering the whole problem.

While I appreciate the difficulties, is it not a fact that until new regulations are introduced there is a danger of diseased meat infecting animals and of the infection being passed on to human beings? Is not the public safety and protection of paramount importance in all this?

Yes. There is, however, some exaggeration. For instance, it was thought that anthrax would be dealt with under the proposed regulations. I am told, however, that ordinary sterilisation would not cause immunity from anthrax being passed on by sterilised meat.

I was expecting my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) to ask a supplementary question concerning unfit meat. Since he has not been called, I give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory answers, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve relations between the Pig Industry Development Authority, appointed by his Department, and the National Pig Breeders Association, representing pedigree breeders, who are in conflict over the accreditation scheme proposed by the authority.

The Pig Industry Development Authority is an independent body constituted under the Agriculture Act, 1957, with certain specified functions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in these circumstances it would be difficult for me to intervene.

Will my right hon. Friend try to have a word in the ear of the chairman of the Pig Industry Development Authority to ensure that this new statutory body works in the closest possible amity with the old-established breed societies, who have done a great deal to improve the breed and production of good pigs, to ensure that they can go forward in agreement rather than in conflict?

Obviously, that would be desirable. It is not for me to prejudge this question, which is much the responsibility of the Authority. I will, however, certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

When considering the matter in relation to the pig industry, is the Minister not aware that only this week the returns show a decrease of 700,000, as compared with last year, in the pig population as a result of lack of confidence in Government policy? Is not that the real problem in the industry?

The hon. Member is making his intervention on the wrong Question. He can do that later.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that, on the evidence of his quarterly census figures, the pig breeding herd in England and Wales in September, 1959, was the lowest for any quarter since September, 1955; and if he will state his future policy with regard to the size of the pig herd in this country so that farmers and others may plan their production and marketing to achieve maximum efficiency.

Yes, Sir. But the monthly sample censuses since June have shown that the decline has been arrested, and past experience suggests that an increase in the breeding herd can now be expected. I have already given an assurance that the standard price for pigs will not be reduced after the next Annual Review, and there is no reason why pig producers should not plan ahead with confidence.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the combination of the statistics revealed in this Question and the two succeeding Questions has conspired to create an atmosphere of gloom in the pig-rearing industry? Will he announce at a very early date the results of his continuous discussion of that with the interests concerned?

Yes, I am sure my hon. Friend will join with me in trying to disperse this atmosphere of unnecessary gloom. We shall come in a moment to the details of the matter on subsequent Questions. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope to be in a position, having examined very carefully the various representations which have been put to me, to make a statement fairly shortly.

Was it not made very clear by the Government not very long ago and on more than one occasion that too many pigs were being produced? What is the use of hon. Members who support the Government belly-aching now about the situation?

Not a Parliamentary term.

I rather agree with my hon. Friend that that was an un-Parliamentary term, but the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) must be fair. At the beginning of 1958 pig subsidies were running very high indeed, at a rate of £40 million a year, and there was a great danger that the subsidies would go up. That was why in the February Price Review in 1958 a fairly drastic cut was made.

Would not the Minister agree, in view of my previous supplementary question, in which I pointed out that there had been a decline compared with last year of 700,000 pigs, that that is a rather serious situation for the industry? Surely there should be no complacency about it?

I think the hon. Member is doing me a discourtesy if he suggests that I am in any way complacent, because I am not. What I have pointed out is that the breeding herd figure has, in fact, levelled out since last June. From past experience, it would seem likely that the curve will start to rise now that the fall has been checked.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the production of bacon in Great Britain in the September quarter, 1959, was lower than in any comparable period since decontrol in 1954 and is continuing to fall; and what steps he is taking, other than the introduction of separate price guarantees for bacon pigs, to ensure that British bacon will continue to be available to meet consumer demand.

Yes. Sir, but I would remind my hon. Friend that production for the United Kingdom as a whole was, in fact, higher in the September quarter of 1959 than in the corresponding period in 1956. In addition, during the 10 months January to October this year, bacon production in the United Kingdom was only 1 per cent. less than last year.

Figures can be made to mean anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "For coal and oil, for instance."] I am just as good at interpreting them as my right hon. Friend is. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress he has now made in the important consideration of the separation of guarantees of pork pigs from bacon pigs, which seems to be at the heart of this important matter?

I know how skilful my hon. Friend is in producing figures, but he must allow me the use of my figures just as he has the right to use his. On the question about the separation of guarantees, I think it would be better if the House were to await the statement which will not now be very long delayed.

Are we going to get any action? A statement is not good enough. We want to know whether any action is to be taken by the Government, for this reason, that speculation about whether there is to be Government action or inaction is only going to make things worse. What I and, I am sure, the House wants to know is whether the Government will take action about this before the next Price Review.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to lecture me. I am sure the House is well aware that my statement will cover the very points which are being raised in the House at the moment.

Before the Price Review?

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that bacon production in this country has gone down very much and that the import of bacon pigs in recent months has increased very much—in some cases, that of Yugoslav imports, for instance, by 250 per cent.—over last year's figures? Will he take action by negotiations with the countries concerned to secure that there will be a more even import at a lower rate of pigs?

I certainly am considering the very point my right hon. Friend has just made, but, with his usual clarity, he did say "only in recent months" have bacon producers been getting lower prices. That is fair, because in previous months they had been doing rather better than the pork producers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the industry does not want a lecture from him but to know whether he is going to take any action? What the Government have said so far—does the right hon. Gentleman recognise this?—is that they will not reduce the guarantees in the next Price Review. That is regarded as not sufficient by the industry.

The hon. Gentleman is a great arguer. Surely he will admit that his second supplementary question does not add anything to his first.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that for the last ten weeks the return to quality pig producers who are the section of the industry who have done most to improve the standards of our breeding herds, has averaged, including the Government's quality premium, more than 1s. a score below the standard price; if he is satisfied that this accords with the fulfilment of his duties to agricultural producers under the Agriculture Act, 1947; and if he will make a statement.

The average returns to producers of graded bacon pigs have recently been below the standard price. But earlier this year they were above the standard price, and the average return from 30th March to 22nd November was, in fact, just above the standard price. The specialist producer of quality bacon pigs has done better than the average.

Yes, Sir, but my right hon. Friend has joined with me in the last few years in agricultural areas in encouraging the production of quality pigs for both pork and bacon. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] By exhortation and otherwise. Is it not a little unfortunate that, after these large sums of money have been invested by pig producers in the raising of quality herds, their return now should be such a very small margin, if at all, above the standard price? Could not my right hon. Friend do what is really necessary in this matter and raise the guarantees, which would give satisfaction?

Again, I am sure my hon. Friend will do me the courtesy of waiting for the statement which I hope to make.

The Price Review?

No, Sir. I think that the occasion of that statement is the one on which these questions can be answered in greater detail than they can be answered at the moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the discussions which have been taking place with the various organisations interested in land drainage Proposals, he has had consultations with the Association of Municipal Corporations regarding the advisability of spreading the burden of drainage rates equitably amongst all ratepayers; and whether he is now in a position to make a further statement.

The Association of Municipal Corporations has been consulted on certain proposals for helping to overcome some rating anomalies in internal drainage districts in so far as they affect local authorities. These proposals have emerged from the discussions referred to in my reply to the right hon. Member on 9th November.

While not wishing to join in the congratulations offered to the Minister on an earlier Question on this subject, may I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say whether this matter will be covered in the White Paper to which his right hon. Friend has referred, because there is here something in the nature of an injustice that wants remedying as much as the injustices done to farmers and landowners?

If the right hon. Member does not wish to be associated with the congratulations, I would not wish to anticipate the White Paper which will be coming forward. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to consider it when it comes.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the White Paper, as much justice will be done to my constituents, who live in the city, as to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who are outside it? We are very concerned about this matter as the water comes pouring down our streets.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many projects for grant assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme have, so far, been approved; what are the main characteristics of the projects; and in which localities farmers are making most use of the scheme.

10,874 farm business plans had been approved in England and Wales at the end of October. A large proportion of these plans are concerned with improvement of grassland, better use of grass and greater intensity of stocking or less dependence on purchased feed. The greatest response to the Scheme has been in Wales and the South-West of England.

May we take it that the Minister of Agriculture is well satisfied with this early response? Will he consider giving us fuller details about the use of the scheme made in the different counties and state the items in HANSARD?

Yes, my right hon. Friend is very well satisfied with the progress, which I think is most encouraging. As to giving details, I would be glad to look into that, but perhaps it may be more convenient to wait till we have had twelve months of the scheme. However, I will look into my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has identified the source of infection which has brought the present widespread outbreaks of fowl pest; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the poultry industry from such infection.

It is not possible to give a specific reason for the numerous widespread outbreaks that have occurred since October. All known ailing birds and poultry that have been exposed to the risk of infection are being slaughtered. Special restrictions on the movement of poultry have been imposed in the districts where the risks of spread of disease are greatest.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view of some leading veterinary scientists that the very bad dose of trouble in the virulent form it is has been brought in by the smuggling in of hatching eggs from America for the purpose of the development of the broiler industry? Will he have very close consultation with some representatives of the broiler industry about whether this has in fact happened and whether they will stop it in future?

I have no evidence of that, but I will certainly look into what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent outbreaks of fowl pest.

The present serious epidemic of fowl pest began early in October after a period during which spread of the disease had been kept within reasonable bounds. During the past two months infected areas have been declared in Gloucestershire and adjoining counties, the North-East Midlands, and East Anglia, and my Department has purchased and destroyed more than 1½ million birds in order to check the spread of the infection. The epidemic does not seem yet to have run its course, but my veterinary staff are doing everything possible to maintain control.

How far have egg supplies been affected by this? The Minister will be aware of the statement made by Mr. Harvey, the general secretary of the Poultry Association of Great Britain, which says that there is need now for a major frontal attack to isolate this virus. Can we be assured that everything will be done by the Ministry so that there will be a drive, as indicated by the Association, against this outbreak?

The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. As to the second, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that is possible. We believe that the present methods used by the Ministry are the best so far devised, but, of course, we are always on the lookout to take the benefit of any new techniques which come along. As to the other question, about egg supplies, I am in a position to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that there are ample egg supplies available at the moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of poultry slaughtered on account of fowl pest since the beginning of October; and what effect these losses are expected to have on the supply of poultry for Christmas.

The total number of birds slaughtered in Great Britain on account of fowl pest from 1st October to 22nd November was about 1½ million. The number of table poultry slaughtered was about 1 million, of which it is estimated that about 90 per cent. were broilers and less than 5 per cent. turkeys. There is at present no cause for concern about supplies of Christmas poultry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to minimise the dangers through human consumption of fish caused by British methods of dumping radioactive waste at sea, in the light of the criticisms made at the International Atomic Energy Agency's conference at Monaco.

Continuous monitoring by scientists of my Ministry and of the Atomic Energy Authority shows that the authorised discharges of radioactive waste to the sea do not give rise to any risk to consumers of fish. My right hon. Friend will, of course, study the official report of the Monaco Conference when this is received.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fundamental differences in scientific circles about the dangers from the disposal of radioactive waste? Is he aware that the Windscale works disposes of more radioactive waste in the sea than is disposed of in any other country? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that at this conference of the most eminent scientists in Europe the view was expressed that there should be no disposal of radioactive waste at all but that it should all be stored?

I am aware of the point of view put forward by certain delegates of other countries, but I should like to emphasise that we have a very careful monitoring of any area where the Wind-scale waste goes, and reports so far certainly do not bear out any of the fears that have been expressed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department, in conjunction with the London County Council has now acquired the site at the junction of Old Street and City Road to be used by the proposed Covent Garden Market Authority for the storage of empty containers and produce in bulk.

The London County Council is still negotiating for the site and I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd November, 1959.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in view of the assurances given in the House about this matter at an earlier date, that there is natural concern that the negotiations shall proceed as swiftly as possible?

The hon. Member and I have had many connections with the London County Council, and I am sure that we can rely on its carrying out the negotiations with the greatest possible expedition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling in the borough of Finsbury about this? Is he aware that, rightly or wrongly, it is felt that London County Council has ridden roughshod over the borough of Finsbury? Is he aware that the borough holds strong views on the unsuitability of this site and that there are other sites, such as the Caledonian Market, which are much more suitable? Will my right hon. Friend reopen the question to ensure that one of the smaller London boroughs is not overridden in this not very appropriate manner?

If Finsbury Borough Council makes representations, naturally we shall consider them, but the Answer is as I have given to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the continuing shortage of butter, if he will make a further statement on current imports of butter and on the action he is taking to increase supplies.

The seasonal increase in the rate of imports from New Zealand and Australia has now begun, and supplies continue to arrive from North America. I am glad to say that shipments on the way from Australia and New Zealand alone amount to over 37,300 tons.

Does the hon. Gentleman think this will result in any decrease in the present exorbitant prices being charged for butter?

Surely the hon. Member is aware that already there has been quite a change in market prices in the last few days.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to ensure that imported bacon is marked with the country of origin.

The Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 3 Order, 1934, makes it obligatory for any bacon imported into the United Kingdom to bear an indication of origin. This indication may, at the option of the person applying the mark, be either "Empire" or "foreign", as the case may be, or a definite indication of the country of origin.

Does that rule apply to imported pigmeat which is cured in this country?

Yes, Sir. It certainly would apply to any pigmeat which has been imported. Whatever subsequently is done with it, it will still have to bear the name of the country of origin on it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Norway spruce the Forestry Commission will offer for sale for Christmas trees this year; how many of these trees will be smaller than 2 ft., between 2 ft. and 3 ft., between 3 ft. and 4 ft., and between 4 ft. and 5 ft., respectively; and how many will be complete trees and how many will be tops.

The answer to the first part of the Question is about 500,000 trees and tops. As the answer to the second part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can my hon. Friend tell me what system of forestry entails the destruction of 500,000 young trees, or is it that the Forestry Commission is now entering the Christmas-tree market and is growing trees for that market?

No, Sir. It certainly is not the intention of the Forestry Commission to grow trees specifically for that market. It has a certain number of surplus trees—thinnings—which it utilises in this way. I would not have thought there was anything very wrong about that.

What prices is the Commission charging for these trees? Is it undercutting private growers?

That is a slightly different question from the one on the Order Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down.

Is not the Forestry Commission a good example of a State enterprise being very successful, and ought we not to encourage it?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he permits pigmeat to be imported into the United Kingdom from Holland, Hungary, and Poland.

In accordance with our international obligations and general trade policy, the Government have removed restrictions from nearly all commodities, including pigmeat, imported from Western Europe. Imports of pigmeat from the Soviet bloc are only permitted within quotas.

Is it not right, nevertheless, that the proportion of foreign-produced bacon consumed in this country is increasing very rapidly? Would it not be right to review the situation? Could I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the situation as it stands at the moment? Will not he arrange that confidence is restored to the home producers by making it perfectly clear that he will not hesitate to control these imports if he thinks it necessary?

That is a different question, and obviously comes into the general review which I am now making of the pig industry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why persons permanently retired on grounds of ill-health are unable to claim repayment of their post-war credits unless they are in receipt of National Assistance.

Under the existing regulations, permanent retirement on grounds of ill-health does not, by itself, entitle a person to be repaid his post-war credits before reaching the qualifying age, but, as my right hon. Friend has said recently in reply to Questions, he is considering carefully the case of the long-term sick.

I am glad to hear that. Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us that we are on our way to doubling the standard of living in 25 years? What possible justification is there for denying to a public service pensioner on a small pension of £5 a week, who earned post-war credits 14 or 15 years ago, the repayment of the money at the moment when he most needs it?

I cannot go further than I have already gone. If the hon. Member will read my Answer, he will see the circumstances and the reason.

Why cannot the hon. Gentleman go further? Surely this is a question that demands an easy "Yes" or "No". Does he not realise that a great many people feel that it is an insult to the prosperity which we are told exists today that these people should be living in this condition? Must we wait until the next Budget for this relief? Why cannot we have an answer now?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the feeling of the House on this point. I cannot go further than to say that he is considering carefully the position of the long-term sick.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to widen the powers and discretion of trustees as regards investments.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended to introduce further legislation to broaden the basis of trustee investment.

A review of the whole question is now well advanced. But this is a subject which affects many interests, and I cannot say with complete certainty when the Government's intentions will be announced. I hope, however, that it will be possible to say something more quite soon.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement, which has been awaited for a long time, is in pursuance of an undertaking given by the Government a number of years ago. Could he realise that there is a great hope that when it comes it will be good?

I am well aware of the hope my hon. Friend has expressed. I will only say that I hope it will not be long before an announcement can be made. However, I am sure he will realise that it is an important and complicated matter. It is true to say that the trustee investment list has not been changed to a great extent for about seventy years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor said in the other place in May that a comprehensive scheme was being evolved and that he hoped a public announcement would be made shortly? Is he also aware that we are a little concerned at hearing my hon. Friend say "shortly", bearing in mind the Lord Chancellor's statement in the other place last May? May I press him for early action, because this is causing considerable hardship to individuals and also to the administration of charitable trusts?

Yes, Sir. I have taken the point my hon. Friend has made and I will go a little further than the Lord Chancellor and say that I hope it will be possible to make an announcement within a few weeks.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to provide, that death duties shall only be payable on funds which have been received by executors.

I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I shall be glad to consider any points he cares to put to me.

I shall be only too glad to make my point absolutely clear to my right hon. Friend. What I have in mind is a really deplorable and rather too literal example of the State having its cake and eating it. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that, when I have made it absolutely clear, executors will not be called upon to pay death duties on funds which are not in their hands and over which they have no control?

I had better see the cake before commenting on it. If there is any case my hon. Friend would like to bring to my attention, I can assure him that I will consider it carefully.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the allowances provided in previous Budgets to British shipping interests have proved insufficient to place British shipping in a favourable competitive position vis-à-vis the mercantile marine of other nations; and what further financial assistance to the industry he contemplates.

The tax allowances referred to are, of course, only one factor affecting the competitive position of British shipping, and my right hon. Friend believes them to have been of great assistance. As to the second part of the Question, I have no statement to make. I can, however, assure the right hon. Member that the Government are well aware of the general difficulties of the shipping industry and are watching the position closely.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am fortified in my conviction that something should be done for British shipping because of the demands that have been made from his side of the House this afternoon for further subsidies for agriculture? Is the Minister further aware that there is now a serious decline in the British Mercantile Marine, and that unless something is done about it we shall find ourselves in an even more unfavourable position? Can we have an assurance that the Government are regarding this matter with anxiety and with some gravity?

The causes of the problem are world-wide, and one important piece of help the Government can give is to pursue policies designed to promote an increase in world trade as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which they are certainly doing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the considerable help given through the 40 per cent. investment allowance, and will remember that these investment allowances persisted even when suspended for other types of industry.

What is the Minister saying? Is he not aware that the British shipping industry does not regard the investment allowance as being even a partial solution of the problem? Unless the Government can bring pressure to bear on the United States of America to withdraw the discrimination against British shipping, the Government must render some financial assistance.

That question raises rather wider issues. I only referred to the investment allowance because it comes within my sphere of responsibility. Certainly the shipping industry did not consider that unimportant at the time it was introduced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now revise his previous policy and earmark a defined proportion of the grant to the Arts Council to be set aside for opera in the provinces.

No, Sir.

In order that the House and the country may assess the wisdom or otherwise of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he will be kind enough to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures, from 1950 to date, showing the percentage of grants spent on provincial opera and on opera in London, which might overcome the difficulty of nobody being able to know what the Arts Council is really doing about the opera grants?

If my hon. Friend likes to put down that Question, I will see that the figures are published. In answer to this Question, the policy has always been that the Arts Council should have complete discretion in the distribution of its grant, which I am bound to say is a wise principle.

On a point of order—

Order. Questions started today in rather an agricultural mood. I cannot hear what the hon. Lady is saying.

On a point of order. May I have your assistance, Mr. Speaker? The Minister has suggested that I should put down a Question. The Table cannot permit me to put down that Question. Could you resolve the problem for me? Are you aware that this is why I asked my right hon. Friend if he would play ball with me?

If the hon. Lady submits a Question, it will be considered whether it is in order or not, and if it is in order it will be put down.

It is not fair.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to appoint a Chairman of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes.

The Government have this matter under consideration but have no announcement to make at present.

But if the Government attach any importance to the Council, why is the Chancellor waiting so long before appointing a chairman? Is it because the Government are taking no action and do not want to take any action on the last finding of the Council, namely, that prices are still too high?

That is another question. As I have said, the Government will make an announcement as soon as possible, and it would be as well to wait until that comes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the low current price of 3½ per cent. War Loan, he will establish a sinking fund similar to that established for 3½ per cent. Conversion Stock.

No, Sir. Not only is this form of redemption not provided for in the terms on which War Loan was issued, but would impose a fairly heavy annual change on the Exchequer without the likelihood of its having an appreciable effect on the market price of the stock in the near future.

Would my hon. Friend agree that this type of sinking fund, to re-purchase 1 per cent. of the stock in the open market in any year that the stock stood at a discount of 10 per cent., need not necessarily be a great expense to the taxpayer?

I can only say that in his Question my hon. Friend referred to 3½ per cent. Conversion Stock. I think that if a sinking fund on the lines of the one used in that case were employed for 31 per cent. War Loan, the cost in the first year would amount to about £38 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response there has been to his appeal for lower prices.

There have been downward movements in recent months in some of the components of the principal price indices, but it is impossible to say to what extent this represents a response to the statement my right hon. Friend has made. We believe there is scope for further reductions and we hope to see them take place in the coming months.

Has the Minister noticed that the only substantial response has been from British European Airways, a nationalised industry? If private indus- try will not respond to his appeal for voluntary reductions, will not the Government consider bringing pressure to bear?

I think my right hon. Friend has made his position perfectly clear. I certainly do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about price reductions. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I must mention that the prices of one important category of goods, durable goods—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a sub-index of the Retail Price Index—have been edging down during recent months.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt owner-occupiers, living on small fixed incomes, from Schedule A tax.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Is the Minister aware that pensioners and others living on small fixed incomes are having to subsidise other sections of the community far better off than themselves?

I hope my hon. Friend will recall that Conservative Governments in recent years have done a considerable amount for pensioners and others living on fixed incomes, but on this point I cannot add to what I have said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dwellings, such as caravans and house-boats, are subject to Schedule A tax.

I regret the information is not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make full allowance for a labour charge for owner-occupiers who have to carry out their own property repairs because they are unable to afford to employ a building contractor.

No, Sir. Only actual expenditure can be allowed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Schedule A was paid last year in respect of owner-occupied houses and flats.

The total Income Tax excluding Surtax attributable to owner-occupation of houses and flats last year is estimated at about £40 million.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that it would give great encouragement to home ownership if the anomalies of Schedule A tax were abolished?

I am not sure that could quite hear my hon. Friend's supplementary question in view of the interruption, but the point is that owner-occupied houses are not separated from other types of property in the Schedule A statistics and, therefore, there are difficulties about the figure which my hon. Friend wants. However, if there are any further aspects of the matter and he would like to write to me about them, I will, of course, give him all the information which is available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the saving in administrative expenses if the Schedule A tax was abandoned.

I regret that the cost of assessing and collecting this tax cannot be segregated from the general cost of administering the Revenue.

Can my hon. Friend inform me what would be the total loss to the Exchequer if Schedule A were abolished on owner-occupiers?

As I have explained, there are difficulties about separating the statistics in the case of owner-occupiers. I gave my hon. Friend the total figure just now, and I am afraid that that is the best I can do this afternoon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the number of claims made annually for additional allowances for maintenance against Schedule A tax.

About 700,000 at the present time.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the work involved and the smallness of some of the claims, it would be far better to abolish Schedule A altogether on owner-occupiers?

I have already explained that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement on this subject. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers which I have given in reply to earlier Questions.

Why should any Government tax a man who has the initiative to try to buy his own house and thus is not involved in any form of subsidy?

All these questions were debated on the last Finance Bill, and I have no doubt that, whatever happens, they will be raised on future Finance Bills, but I cannot add this afternoon to what I have already said.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread feeling that much more should be done as soon as possible to improve the present unsatisfactory situation now being endured by many old people, if he will state the action he proposes to take to deal with pensions, an increase in domiciliary services, and the urgent need for additional accommodation suitable for elderly people.

The hon. Member can be sure that as the Government's programme unfolds he will find that we shall fully live up to our fine record of achievement in the service of our older fellow countrymen.

That is not good enough. Does not the Prime Minister agree that the only proposal which has been made since the General Election has affected only 80,000 people, and that was the proposal to raise the earnings limit? Is he not aware that the ages of many of these people are so great that Christmas, 1960, will be too late? In view of that, is it possible that a worth-while announcement will be made before this Christmas so that the hearts of the elderly may be gladdened in a few weeks' time?

If I remember aright, this question was widely discussed during recent weeks, in the course of the autumn, and the conclusions reached by the electors were abundantly clear.

Shame.

Does this mean that the Prime Minister considers that the old-age pensioners should continue to pay the price of the Government's success in misrepresenting the economic position of this country?

No, Sir. I do not think that is a very good supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It will not go here, but it might do at Blackpool.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people for whose benefit the Question was asked are, indeed, elderly people and that, while the Government's policy is unfolding, to quote his original Answer, they are dying?

I realise that during the whole of the last eight years—I believe that it will be the same in future years—the Government's record has been a fine one against the miserable record of the Labour Government.

Does the Prime Minister realise that, while his cheap jibe to my right hon. Friend goes down well enough with his own supporters, it well go down very badly indeed among the old people?

I also realise that the old people are better off now than they have ever been under any Administration, and we shall continue in this Parliament to live up to the record of the last Parliament?

Disgraceful.

asked the Prime Minster if he will define the responsibilities of the Minister for Welsh Affairs in relation to his other functions as Minister for Housing and Local Government.

It is the responsibility of the Minister for Welsh Affairs to keep himself continuously informed of Welsh points of view, to take an active interest in all aspects of public business affecting Wales and to speak in Cabinet on behalf of the interests of Wales. His responsibilities as Minister of Housing and Local Government acquaint him with the economic and social needs of Wales; and in addition other Ministers discuss with him any of their proposals or policies which affect Wales.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for Welsh Affairs, speaking at the Dispatch Box a few days ago in connection with a certain planning decision at Capel Curig, said that he could take into account no aspects of Welsh sentiment? Is the House to understand from the Prime Minister's statement that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is purely a figment of our imagination and does not really exist?

No, Sir. I think the House as a whole will recognise that the system is one which has brought advantage and that the Minister for Wales is doing a good job for Wales and is ably supported by the Minister of State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present arrangement is causing some confusion? Is he aware that the Minister for Welsh Affairs last week answered a Question on unemployment in Wales, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour? Can he clarify the position or appoint a Secretary of State with specific powers for Departments in Wales?

The appointment of a Secretary of State would not get over the problem which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If I remember aright, the Minister of Labour is responsible for labour matters in Scotland where the Secretary of State system operates.

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements Dr. Verwoerd has made with him to discuss, during his forthcoming visit to South Africa, proposals for turning the Union of South Africa into a Republic; and if, during such discussions, he will reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's intentions with regard to the future of the British High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland.

The programme for my visit to the Union has yet to be worked out. The arrangements are at present under consideration in consultation with the Union authorities.

The Prime Minister does not appear to have answered either of the questions which I have put to him. Will he in particular give an assurance that there will be no change in the British High Commission Territories without prior consultation with this House?

There is a specific question—the next—on the first part of the Question. On the second part, our pledges stand.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will include in his African tour visits to the British High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland.