asked the Minister of Power, in view of the need to speed the provision of electricity to those rural houses which are still without a supply, if he will authorise area boards to undertake further additional work on rural electrification.

As I told the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) last week, the possibility of increasing the present high rate of area boards' capital expenditure on rural electrification is governed by their revenue position rather than their capital allocations.

Despite the good progress that has been made in many areas with rural electrification, will my right hon. Friend again have consultations with the area boards to see whether this matter can be speeded up? It is quite a time now since the rural electrification plans were drawn up and electricity has become much more important in daily life since then. Will my right hon. Friend see whether some of these really bad areas, which are there by chance of district, can be given some better hope than at present?

I look forward to further talks with the Eastern Electricity Board, but I notice that the connections which the board estimate will be made in my hon. Friend's area by 1963 include 93 per cent. of all the farms there and 96 per cent. of other rural premises.

May I ask the Minister whether, if he responds to the request of his hon. Friend to speed up rural electrification, at considerable cost, he will take steps to ensure that his hon. Friends behind him will then not malign this highly successful nationalised industry?

I am sure that my hon. Friends will be most helpful, as they always are.

In view of this remarkably great success in bringing rural electrification forward at this quick pace, will the right hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the fact that this could not have happened without the nationalisation of the industry?

My hon. Friend spoke about this very problem last week, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will probably read his remarks.

asked the Minister of Power by what criteria he is guided in exercising his powers of general direction to the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Authority and the Gas Council.

It has not been necessary so far to give general directions to the National Coal Board or to the Electricity or Gas Councils. The criterion of national interest prescribed in the statutes remains unchanged.

If that is so, would it not be an excellent criterion to start with to ensure that the Gas Council does not import quantities of methane which are detrimental to the interests of the nationalised coal industry, and, equally, that the Government should direct the Central Electricity Authority to switch over as rapidly as possible from oil burning to coal burning so as to help the National Coal Board?

On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure he will be aware of the action already taken. On the first part, I am in some difficulty because it raises hypothetical circumstances in the future. I notice that when the right hon. Gentleman was making his speech at the beginning of nationalisation he warned us:

"It depends on the circumstances, but beyond that it would seem to me to be improper to proceed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1822.]

To what is the right hon. Gentleman referring when he speaks about "circumstances in the future" and to "it would be improper to proceed"? Is he taking something out of its very rational context?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importation of liquid methane and I was merely saying—[Interruption.] I thought the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this just now and I took it to be a foreshadowing of possible events in the future. I was merely drawing his attention to his own speech, which seemed to reflect rather relevantly on this matter.

asked the Minister of Power what sums have been, or will be, expended on the purchase of oil for stocking purposes in each of the financial years 1958–59 and 1959–60.

asked the Minister of Power the separate amounts of crude oil and fuel oil which are stored in this country by Her Majesty's Government; the value of this oil; the cost of storage; and where the storage places are situated.

Capital expenditure by my Department on the supply, storage and distribution of petroleum products was £7.7 million in 1958–9 and is expected to be about the same in this financial year. In the public interest I am afraid I cannot give all the details asked for.

Is the Minister aware that it is really nonsense to suggest that the defence of the country would be harmed in any way if the Government were to disclose exactly how much they are paying to the oil companies for this oil? Are we not entitled to know just how much more help the Government are giving to the oil industry than to the coal industry?

I am afraid that no Government have been able to go further than I have and to disclose other figures. Therefore, I am afraid that I am prevented from giving the hon. Member all the information which he would like for the comparisons which he wants to make.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it is that the Government of the day support private industry by spending £7·7 million a year when we have a nationalised industry which has huge stocks of coal and is made responsible for its own stocking? Would the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the Government are also responsible for the stocking of coal?

The hon. Member seems to be ignoring the fact that only last week I moved an Order in the House, which the House approved, in order to increase the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board so that it can finance stocks—which the hon. Member wants.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that coal is of a strategic importance equal to that of oil? That being so, will the Government give assistance, apart from borrowing powers, for the stocking of coal so as to help the Board in the present emergency?

I do not want to be unduly controversial, but the hon. Member will appreciate that the reason for the present level of coal stocks is not strategic. It is that production has been exceeding demand. Therefore, I do not think that any valid comparison can be made between the two.

asked the Minister of Power by how much the consumption of fuel oil increased between 1953 and 1958; and how much of the increase came from refineries in this country.

Seven million tons. During the whole period home production exceeded inland consumption.

How does the Minister work that out? The increase in production in oil refineries in the United Kingdom has been only 1½ million tons in the period, according to Board of Trade statistics?

If the hon. Gentleman looks up the figures of production at home he will see that a very large increase took place in 1953. By 1958 annual production had increased by a further 2 million tons. I would repeat that in the whole period home production has exceeded demand.

asked the Minister of Power the net fuel oil imports in the first nine months of this year; and the cost of such imports.

None, Sir. Our exports, including bunkers, supplied to oceangoing ships exceeded imports by about 1 million tons valued at about £6 million.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that for several years coal miners took only one week's holiday instead of the two to which they were entitled, that they worked a six-day week instead of the five days agreed upon, and that they agreed to the importation of foreigners to get output increased, and to increase the supply of coal in view of national necessity; and if he will now consider making a grant instead of a loan during the period of reorganisation of the pits.

The Government appreciate the contribution miners made towards increasing coal production in time of shortage. I am satisfied that the present methods, as laid down by Statute, are adequate and appropriate to finance the National Coal Board's programme of reorganisation and development.

Would it not be true to say that if the extra wealth produced out of the sacrifices of the miners were calculated it would probably amount to £1,000 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the way of advances to various industries, subsidies to farmers, and investment allowances, others all over the country are making profits? Is he aware that they are getting what the miners cannot get because there are no profits after the payment of interest and because the investment allowances are no good? Is the Minister aware that the interest charges are equal to 3s. per ton? Is it not rather ungrateful that the country should ignore the position of the mining industry by refusing a grant?

As the hon. Member will remember, I initiated steps last week which I hope the House will approve, to provide the necessary finance for the Coal Board's operations in the near future. I took the view then, and I take it now, that that will be the best way to provide the finance which the Coal Board will need.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the stocking of 50 million tons of coal is largely due to the continuation of opencast production introduced to meet a scarcity of coal and now continued in a time of over-production thus causing unemployment in the mining community; and if he will terminate opencast production within twelve months.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply on 23rd November to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley).

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how much it would take to finish the contracts for opencast coal at the moment so that the miners would have a better opportunity of placing more coal on the market?

That comes under Question 16. This has nothing to do with it.

There is a Question on that very point later on, and perhaps the hon. Member will await the reply.

asked the Minister of Power how many acres of agricultural land in Lancashire as still requisitioned for opencast coal operations.

Four thousand acres, of which 2,600 acres are under agricultural restoration.

Will not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is almost idiotic to close down seven mines in Lancashire, due to excessive coal stocks, and at the same time churn up good agricultural land? Will he guarantee that opencast mining will cease in Lancashire, at least by the end of 1960?

I have no information about the reason for the closures, but I certainly do not accept that the mines are being closed because of stocks of coal on the ground. Secondly, it has been considered inadvisable and unwise to bring the opencast coal industry to an abrupt finish. The extent of opencast working is being rapidly diminished and will be only 2 million tons at the end of 1965.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the matter of extractive industries Lancashire suffers more than any part of Britain? Could not a good example be set by doing matters in reverse now and sparing land in Lancashire?

The hon. Member will agree that the Board is running down opencast mining as fast as it reasonably can.

The hon. Gentleman is running down the whole industry as fast as he can.

asked the Minister of Power, having regard to opencast coal output of 14 million tons in 1958, 11 million tons estimated in 1959, 7 million tons estimated in 1960, reducing to 2 million tons in 1965, and the present coal stocks of 53 million tons, distributed and undistributed, worth approximately £230 million, what steps he has taken to ascertain the cost of compensation for cancellation of all opencast contracts early in 1960, and total cessation of opencast coal mining.

None, Sir. It would have been quite unreasonable to bring this large industry to such an abrupt end, and the National Coal Board has not negotiated with its contractors on that basis. I would not in any case accept that distributed stocks should be brought into the picture.

That is an academic argument anyway but, as my hon. Friend neglected to observe that under his rundown plans for opencast coal mining—which I have been opposing in this House since my maiden speech ten years ago—he proposes in 1960 to mine by opencast methods 7 million tons of coal, practically all of which is going into stock at huge cost, I ask him again whether he would not consider outright cancellation of all opencast mining contracts, on the premise that it would be cheaper to pay compensation now rather than mine this coal—which ought to be a strategic reserve anyway—and put it all into stock? Cannot we have some realism in these matters?

My hon. Friend has again failed to notice the estimates for next year. He says that the 7 million tons of opencast coal to be mined in 1960 will go to stock. The estimates of production are 188 million deep-mined and 7 million opencast, making a total of 195 million. The sales are estimated at 196 million. Therefore, all the opencast coal mined next year is expected to be sold.

asked the Minister of Power whether, having regard to Her Majesty's Government's declared policy on prospecting for opencast coal, the fifty-four prospecting proposals for which applications have been made to the Derbyshire County Council during 1959 will not now be pursued.

As my right hon. Friend explained on 23rd November, the National Coal Board has decided to make big reductions in its opencast prospecting programme. It is for the Board to work out the details of these reductions and I am asking the Chairman to write to the hon. and learned Member.

In analysing the fifty-four prospecting sites to which I have referred in my Question, will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to deal with cases where sanction has been given to bore but they have not entered the site; where they have entered the site but have not commenced to bore; and sites where boring is in operation?

The general programme has already been given by my right hon. Friend. It would be foolish—and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree—to cancel contracts and pay compensation if those contracts could be carried out with very little, if any, damage and yield valuable information.

asked the Minister of Power if the Wilson Committee set up to examine the prospects for a coal-based chemical industry has yet reported its findings; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The Committee is pressing on urgently with its very detailed investigations, but it may be some months yet before it is ready to report. The chairman tells me the Committee has reached a stage where it would welcome further written memoranda from people interested in research and development on processes making chemicals, gases and oil from coal and in the organisation of such work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet at the apparent lack of progress in research in the use of coal as a byproduct? Cannot he get the Committee to speed things up a little?

As the hon. Member knows, the Committee was appointed only in April this year and I think that it is working with considerable dispatch. I hope that it will report as early as possible. I do not honestly believe that it can be accused of delay or lack of urgency in its proceedings.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will now state his revised estimate of total coal production for 1959 and total coal consumption; and by how much in tons the former exceeds the latter.

The outcome should not be very different from that forecast in the reply given on 2nd November to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).

The production of coal this year is likely to exceed consumption by a figure of about 15 million tons, subject to what occurs in the next four weeks until the end of the coal year. Having regard to the rising output per manshift from the mines—all of which will be projected into next year—is it realistic for my right hon. Friend to insist that these coal stocks shall be reduced by only 1 million tons in the next thirteen months? Cannot we have a more realistic assessment in the interests of our taxpayers?

The forecast made by my right hon. Friend is a realistic assessment based on the opinions of those who are expert in assessing consumption and demand for coal in this country.

I disagree entirely with what has been said.

asked the Minister of Power the coal equivalent of oil burned at power stations in 1958; the estimate for 1959; and how his policy of oil to coal will affect matters in each of the years 1960 and 1961.

The coal equivalent of the oil burned at Central Electricity Generating Board power stations in 1958 was approximately 4 million tons. The estimate for 1959 is 7 million tons. I would prefer not to offer an estimate for later years until the current discussions between the Generating Board and the oil companies are concluded.

As we are mining 7 million tons of coal this year—both opencast and deep-mined—and putting it into stock at a huge cost to the nation, would not it be more realistic to cancel all the power station oil contracts outright and pay compensation, all of which would be much cheaper than mining next year a further 7 million tons of coal and putting it into stock? Cannot we have some realistic plans in these important matters?

I am afraid that the hon. Member has overlooked the estimate made by the National Coal Board that all opencast coal mined next year will be sold. With regard to the change-over from oil to coal at the power stations, I have said, and I would not wish to go beyond that statement, that negotiations are now proceeding and I would prefer to say nothing more in case they are prejudiced in any way.

In view of the fact that these experts who have been making these forecasts have nearly always been wrong before—

They have always been wrong.

—will the Parliamentary Secretary have another look at this and get advice from some other experts?

Including me.

An expert who has been wrong is a better estimator thereafter.

Has my hon. Friend observed that I have consistently been right in these matters? A study of what I have said in this House in the past will bear me out. Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring these negotiations to an early conclusion? Is he aware that his predecessor but one told me two years ago that the same negotiations were going on about burning oil at power stations? Surely we can expect some finality soon?

I hope for some finality soon, but these are delicate negotiations and the less said the better.

No.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the possibilities of extracting oil from coal as a commercial proposition.

I cannot yet make a statement. This subject is being reviewed by the Wilson Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this process has been carried out successfully on a commercial basis in South Africa? Is he further aware that the firm of John Brown, civil engineers, has a plant which it claims can do this process on a commercial basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this?

I certainly will. I observe at the moment only that I think that the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing our attention in South Africa are very different from the conditions that would obtain here.

asked the Minister of Power the amount spent annually on research into the uses of coal, as distinct from coal-winning methods; how this research is co-ordinated; and what steps are being taken to increase the amount spent on research in this field by the various nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

The Government, the nationalised industries and the research associations are spending about £1·6 million a year on research, as well as increasing amounts on the development of new processes. It is my responsibility to co-ordinate these research programmes. In doing so, I have the advice of my Scientific Advisory Council under the Chairmanship of Sir Alexander Fleck.

As the oil companies are spending about six to seven times as much on research into the use of oil, is it not a pitiful amount that the Government are spending through their nationalised industry on the research into the use of coal, our basic industry?

I do not see any point in spending money unless we can find something to spend it on.

asked the Minister of Power if he has studied the letter, a copy of which was sent to him by the hon. Member for Govan, on the subject of charges for gas; and whether he will give the Scottish Gas Board a general direction to give consumers more details of charges imposed by the Board.

asked the Minister of Power (1) whether any representations have been made to him by the Scottish Gas Consultative Council under Section 9 (6) of Gas Act, 1948;

asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the Scottish Gas Board to review the operation of its charges system.

asked the Minister of Power what general directions have been given to the Scottish Gas Board in connection with fixing its tariff of charges.

It is the duty of the Gas Consultative Councils to consider complaints which arise from variations of gas tariffs. I have asked the Chairman of the Scottish Gas Consultative Council to consider the letter sent to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), and I will draw his attention also to the points raised by other hon. Members. If representations were made to me by the Council under Section 9 (6) of the Gas Act I would naturally consider them.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he would not also agree that when the Scottish Gas Board issues its accounts, the charges should be clearly specified and a description of the new charge made? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of that lack a great deal of confusion has been caused in Scotland by this new charge? Is he aware that some officials say that it is a meter charge and others that it is a new type of tariff and that members of the public just say it is an imposition? Which is correct?

This is a matter for the Scottish Gas Consultative Council to discuss with the Board. That seems to be the obvious steps to take, and if the Council feels that there are difficulties of the kind which the hon. Member mentioned it should then take action.

Should not the Minister be aware that there is a considerable outcry in Scotland, and certainly in West Scotland, about the new charge? Has not the right hon. Gentleman an obligation under Section 53 of the Gas Act, 1948, without reference to the Consultative Council, and does not Section 53 (4) provide that

"… tariffs shall be so framed as to show the methods by which and the principles on which the charges are to be made … and shall be published in such manner as in the opinion of the Area Board will secure adequate publicity for them?"

It is not for me to determine the legality or otherwise of matters under Section 53 (4). If the hon. Member takes the view that the Act has not been carried out, the obvious remedy is open to him.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will state his policy with regard to approval of the West Midlands Gas Board's general programme of capital development which would empower the Board to proceed with the erection of the Lurgi Complete Gasification Plant at Gorsey Lane, Coleshill.

I have approved this programme, which includes the Lurgi plant at Coleshill.

Can the Minister tell us how much coal this new plant is expected to consume, and what quality of coal it will use?

It will use about 400,000 tons a year. I must be quite frank and tell the House that that will not be a complete addition to the coal requirements, because there will be a certain shutting down of capacity. The coal used will be non-carbonising coal, supplied from pits in the Midlands.

asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made by the Spanish authorities in their investigation into the accident to the British owned Transair Dakota aircraft in the Pyrenees on 19th August; when there will be a public inquiry; and when he expects to make a statement as to the cause of the accident.

I understand that the investigation into this accident by the Spanish authorities is nearly complete. I am advised that no public inquiry is contemplated. Until my right hon. Friend receives the Report he cannot of course make any statement about the cause of the accident.

Does not the Minister agree that a considerable time has now elapsed since the crash, when many young students unfortunately lost their lives? Is he aware that anxiety exists among students' organisations because of this great delay in proceeding with the investigation?

We certainly appreciate the concern which exists about this tragic accident.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in cases where civilian aircraft, leaving from or approaching London Airport, break the height regulations over residential areas, he will take action against the airline operators concerned.

Yes, Sir. I have recently issued a special warning on this subject, and I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that it is generally admitted that many aeroplanes are breaking the height regulations? If this is consistently done by one or more companies, will it be possible to take legal action against them?

I have no evidence that this is going on. If my hon. Friend has proof that aircraft are breaking the regulations I shall be glad if he will let me have it. Recently we carried out a series of spot checks on the height of aircraft over Willesden—which is about ten miles from London Airport—and the results did not reveal that any breach of regulations was taking place.

Could my right hon. Friend have some spot checks taken over Twickenham and surrounding districts, including Feltham, over which it is alleged that many aircraft are flying very low and making a great deal of noise?

I cannot give an undertaking that we will make observations at those particular spots, but it is a regular part of the routine to make these observations at suitable places.

asked the Minister of Aviation how many of the staff formerly employed at the Ministry of Supply have been transferred to his Department.

The non-industrial civilian staff of the Ministry of Aviation totals about 25,000, of whom about 20,000 have come from the Ministry of Supply. In addition there are about 23,000 industrial staff.

In view of the fact that the War Office has had transferred to it about 40,000 from the Ministry of Supply, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement that over 40,000 have come from the Ministry of Supply to his Department, is there to be no redundancy as a result of this reorganisation? What was the point of abolishing the Ministry of Supply unless there was some redundancy, and unless we could get rid of some of the waste material that has been at the Ministry of Supply?

I explained this point to the right hon. Gentleman at consider- able length in the debate we had the other day. I said that the same amount of work has still to be done, and that unless we reduce the work we cannot reduce the staff. What has happened is that certain sections of work have been transferred, with their appropriate staff, to the other Departments.

asked the Minister of Aviation the amount contributed by Her Majesty's Government to aircraft firms since 1951 for the purposes of research and development; and how much has been returned by aircraft firms to the Government.

From April, 1951 to March, 1959, payments made by the Government to industry for research and development on airframes and aero engines have amounted to £430 million. Most of this was for military aircraft for our own Forces; and the special prices paid for them took into account the contributions made by the Government to the cost of development. Some £24 million has been received from the industry in respect of royalties on aircraft developed with Government assistance and sold to other customers.

Is not this a vast—indeed, an extravagant—subsidy provided to the aircraft industry? Over £400 million has been supplied and only £24 million has been returned by way of royalties. Can we have an assurance from the Government that the subsidisation of this industry—which is a waste of taxpayers' money—will cease?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my Answer. I explained that the overwhelming majority of that money was spent on the development of military aircraft for our own Forces. We do not expect to get back a royalty on that—and the price that was paid to the firms for those military aircraft, developed with Government money, was lower than that which would have been charged by the firms if they had developed the aircraft with their own money.

How much money has been returned to the Government by way of taxation because of the exports of these aero engines and airframes, which has been of such great advantage to our taxpayers?

I cannot answer that supplementary question without notice, but it would be a considerable sum.

Can the Minister tell us how the cost to the taxpayer of the private aircraft industry compares with the cost to the taxpayer of the Coal Board, or nationalised transport?

I should think it compares very favourably.

Can the Minister say how much of that £430 million was spent in respect of aircraft which were never subsequently ordered and put into service?

Not without notice. The only aircraft I can think of, straightaway, is the Swift, which was ordered by the right hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power.

asked the Minister of Aviation what consultations he has had with the Minister of Transport with a view to making London Airport more accessible to passengers travelling to and from central London.

I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend on this subject.

Is there any chance of a decision being arrived at on this matter? Is the Minister aware that discussions have been going on for years about the possibility of having a rail link, or monorail, or something of that sort? Are not we as far off as we ever were from arriving at a conclusion on this urgent problem? Is there any hope of a conclusion being reached?

I should think that the discussions will go on for a long time yet. I shall be surprised if they do not. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the first task is to improve the road, and it is being progressively improved, as anybody travelling along it can see. I am told that when the work is completed the journey between the Cromwell Road terminal and the airport will not take more than about 23 or 25 minutes. If we were to introduce a monorail or a similar system we might cut ten minutes off that time. I am not saying that it is not desirable, but up to now these schemes have foundered owing to their high cost, and to the fact that other schemes have claimed priority in the expenditure of Government money.

Is the Minister aware that it takes passengers longer to travel from London to the airport than to fly from the airport to Paris? Will he give some thought to the possibility of establishing helicopter stations?

The trouble is that aircraft fly so fast nowadays.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to bring about an agreed co-ordination of Commonwealth air services.

Within the framework of inter-Governmental Agreements pooling and other arrangements for co-ordination are being operated between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and a number of Commonwealth airlines. These include the Australian Qantas Line, South African Airways and Ghana Airways; and also Central African Airways, East African Airways and Nigeria Airways. Similar arrangements were concluded last week with Trans-Canada Airlines and negotiations are going on at the moment with Air India.

When the former Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation spoke a little time ago about developing a co-ordinated system with the Dominions, did he not mean something more than having passenger and other arrangements with the various companies or organisations running the airways now? Did he not mean in fact some big imaginative scheme, or did he mean the continuation of the present policy?

I do not know, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will exercise his imagination. I do not know, but I would have thought that the pooling arrangements went a very long way.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give his most serious consideration to calling, as early as possible in 1960, a Commonwealth air transport conference in London with a view to setting up a permanent council for air transport development in the Commonwealth on economic, cultural and educational grounds?

I believe that at the right moment there would be an advantage in calling such a conference. What the precise agenda should be, I should like to leave open.

asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to co-operate with the other military and civil aviation authorities in Europe in establishing an automatic electronic system of air traffic control to reduce the risk of collision of military and civil aircraft especially at high altitude.

Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the six European countries of the Common Market have agreed in principle upon the desirability of setting up a joint system of air traffic control above the height of 20,000 feet, and we are together studying the technical and other problems involved.

Can the Minister say at this stage whether he envisages civil control or military control and, if the latter, are the Government in touch with other non-N.A.T.O. countries which have military air forces?

That is one of the questions which is at present being studied.

asked the Minister of Aviation what reply he has made to the letter from the British Air Line Pilots Association containing the recommendation of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association that air traffic control should be exercised by a single civil agency.

I have received a letter from the Association in which it said that it was writing to me at the express request of the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since the letter was written only last Friday, I have not yet had time to send a reply.

There is no objection, I hope, to taking precautions. While the right hon. Gentleman is thinking about the reply he will send, will he note that very soon in America 2,000 military aircraft control systems will come under the Federal Airways Administration, which is America's civil agency for the control of aircraft? If that is possible in America, what difficulties exist to prevent a similar application in this country?

As I have already explained, I share the hon. Gentleman's interest in this question, but I cannot usefully add today to the Answers which I have given to the hon. Gentleman in the last two or three weeks.

asked the Minister of Aviation, as representing the Minister for Science, what arrangements he has made with the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America for the receipt of detailed technical and scientific information obtained from their space satellites; and through which organisations is such information transmitted.

In addition to our close contacts with the United States there is a regular exchange of information on this subject between scientists through various channels, including the three "World Data Centres" established after the International Geophysical Year. One of these is in the United States, one in the Soviet Union, and one in Britain.

Does that imply that information of a scientific nature is coming through freely both from Russia and the United States?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from the British Medical Association in connection with the provision of drugs for private patients under the National Health Service; and what his reply has been to these representations.

asked the Minister of Health what is the nature of the administrative difficulties that prevent the provision of drugs to private patients under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

The British Medical Association has represented that drugs should be supplied to private patients on the same terms as to National Health Service patients. This raises considerations wider than those of administration and I have conveyed to the Association the substance of my reply of 4th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby), to which I would refer my hon. Friends.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend was extremely unsatisfactory? His predecessors in office stonewalled on this question for a number of years, first on the ground of cost, then on the ground that certain safeguards were necessary. Now that the profession has agreed to all the safeguards required, my right hon. and learned Friend finds another reason for doing nothing. If he has no intention at all of allowing private patients to obtain drugs under the National Health Service, would it not be much more honest of him to say so, rather than to find one fresh excuse after another?

The implications of my hon. Friend's somewhat lengthy supplementary question fall below his usual standard of accuracy in these matters. Is it not a fact that excuses are being found in this context. Discussions on administrative procedures were quite clearly made without commitment on the question of principle. On the question of principle, our position is that people have a right to resort to private practice if they so desire and, therefore, the preservation of private practice is a matter of concern to the Government. If the present position endangers the existence of private practice or prevents any substantial number of people availing themselves of it who would otherwise do so, we shall certainly consider the question of drugs. At the moment we have no evidence of that.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his attitude is approved by many doctors in this country and also by the whole of the public?

Is it approved in Norway?

If the hon. Member is so interested in the question of heredity, I suggest that he reads Darwin's Origin of Species, which should interest him. I will send him a copy.

I do not think that the word "pressure" is particularly felicitous to describe the conscientious efforts of some of my hon. Friends to put forward considerations in the public interest. I think that the principle is quite clear. People are entitled to resort to the National Health Service and all that goes with it. They are also entitled, if they so prefer, to go to private practice. It does not necessarily and logically follow that if they do the second they should have drugs on the same terms as the first. It is important to preserve the right of private practice and, therefore, if the evidence is forthcoming we shall certainly consider it, but so far the evidence has not been forthcoming.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the opinion of many of those in private practice is as he stated? They fear that their position as private practitioners is endangered by this. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he is also aware that at the outset of the National Health Service it was clearly stated then, by no less a person than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), that all the service or any part of it is to be available to anyone in England and Wales, and does he not think that his present statement is contrary to the expression of intention?

I think not, because the provision of drugs is not a separate element but an ancillary part of the general practitioner service. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there is, of course, a wealth of assertion to the effect that private practice is endangered and people are debarred from entering into it who would otherwise do so, but, as he knows, there is a difference between assertion and evidence and it is the evidence for which we look to be supplied. The British Medical Association has ample opportunities to supply that evidence if it is available and I shall certainly consider it most carefully and sympathetically.

In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question again at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Health if he will abolish health charges for all old-age pensioners suffering from a complaint certified to be chronic by a National Health medical practitioner.

asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received regarding the unnecessary cumbersomeness and expense of the method now employed to refund the cost of medical prescriptions to old people; and if he will now arrange to exempt them from these charges altogether.

No general representations have been received against the procedure for refunds which is simple, puts the applicant to no extra expense and is not costly to administer.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the health charges put on by hon. Members opposite cause great hardship to the chronic sick? Will he do something to relieve this by allowing old-age pensioners to get their medicine free if they are invalids? Is he aware that many old-age pensioners will not draw National Assistance and consequently cannot get their medicine free?

There would be difficulties about exempting categories, more particularly because of the possibility of comparable circumstances existing in categories which were exempted and those which were not. There is a scheme in operation for the refund of charges to those in need and my information is that this is working satisfactorily.

Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that he is unaware of the great difficulty faced by many old people in receipt of National Assistance who have to pay for their prescriptions and wait for many days for reimbursement owing to certain bureaucratic formalities? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman have talks with old people's welfare committees and bodies of that kind who could do a great deal to enlighten him? Is he saying that he has had no representations from my constituency on this subject, because if he has not, I can assure him that he will get some very soon?

What the hon. Gentleman refers to as "bureaucratic formalities" does not deserve that pejorative description. Persons receiving National Assistance can get a refund by presenting the form with the allowance book at the post office when drawing the National Assistance. The procedures are simple and we have had no representations that they are not working satisfactorily.

Is it not a fact that large numbers of chronic sick receive National Assistance and is not the simple answer to the administrative difficulties, which I recognise, that all these charges should be abolished in view of what we are told is the improved financial state of the country?

A person not in receipt of a regular grant from the National Assistance Board can apply for a refund by sending or taking the form, which he receives from the chemist supplying the drug, to the local office of the Board, and again that is a simple procedure. I stated the policy of the Government on the second point raised by the right hon. Lady during the debate on 15th July, and she and the House will recall that we will consider the question of prescription charges in the light of the position at the end of the two-year trial period of the voluntary limitation of drugs recommended by the Hinchliffe Committee.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and in order—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The replies were the result of my Question.

—to provide an opportunity for the discussion of this specific problem, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

I shall be obliged if hon. Members who wish to give notice of their intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment would do so by using the traditional formula and no more, as a departure from it is liable to give rise to difficulties.

asked the Minister of Health if he will announce the first two of a series of official codes of practice on the hygienic handling of food.

Yes, Sir. The first two of these codes, dealing with hygiene in the retail meat trade and the hygienic transport and handling of meat, were published on 17th November. I am sending copies to the hon. Member.

Can the hon. Lady state when the next series will be coming out?

Yes, Sir. There are two more in preparation in connection with the fish trade. They have been circulated to interested parties and are now being revised in the light of their comments.

asked the Minister of Health, in view of the special health risks connected with unsound meat, what precautions he has laid down for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of food unfit for human consumption.

The law requires the justice who condemns food intended for human consumption to order it to be destroyed or so disposed of as to prevent it from being consumed.

Is the hon. Lady aware that since 1954 the disposal of unfit meat from slaughter houses and knackers' yards has been the subject of discussion? Formerly it was either sterilised or steamed. Is she aware that several Ministers have spoken about the urgency of this matter but even now in 1959 discussions are still taking place? What is holding matters up?

Unfit meat from knackers' yards is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but on the question of health there is a joint responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend have this matter under consideration at the moment.

asked the Minister of Health what arrangements he is making for an efficient ambulance service in the Willenhall area of Staffordshire.

This is primarily a matter for the responsible local health authority. I am informed that the Staffordshire County Council proposes to review the arrangements in the area when its new ambulance and radio control station at Tipton is functioning.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask her right hon. and learned Friend to have a look at this matter? Is she aware that there is widespread public anxiety at Willenhall in connection with the ambulance service in that area?

I am told that the ambulance cover in the area is regarded by the council as adequate. It is provided from the nearby station at Darlaston which provides a 24-hour service. The distance from this station to Willenhall is only three miles and it takes ten minutes by ambulance. There is liaison with Wolverhampton and Walsall to cover emergencies. The Staffordshire County Council is satisfied with the ambulance service at the moment.

Would not the hon. Lady agree that it might be easier to provide an efficient ambulance service if the control were invested in the authority using the ambulances, namely, the regional hospital boards? Has her right hon. and learned Friend given consideration to that matter?

I am too new at my job to be able to say whether my right hon. and learned Friend has given consideration to that matter, but so far as I am aware the system works well in the hands of local authorities. I promise, however, to take note of the point which the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will invite the World Health Organisation to study the rise in the incidence of leukaemia in relation to man-made radiation.

I understand that there is already liaison between the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which has this subject under review.

Has the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman been drawn to the world-wide anxiety about this matter and the statement by Mr. Perrin, the French High Commissioner for Atomic Energy, who stated that as a result of the 1957–58 tests 1,000 people will die of leukaemia and a thousand children will be born deformed? Will he recall his own figures which show that since 1948 deaths in this country from leukaemia have risen from 1,000 to over 2,000 last year? Does not that indicate an association between leukaemia and man-made radiation? Will he draw the attention of Governments, now contemplating either making new tests or reinstating old tests, to the danger to public health from such nuclear tests?

The rise in the death rate from leukaemia has been general in the world and has been going on for the last thirty years or so, long before these tests to which the hon. Gentleman refers. This is, of course, an important subject and at the next session of the United Nations Committee there is to be further discussion of the connection between radiation and leukaemia. The hon. Gentleman will have in mind that the nuclear aspect is relatively small compared with the natural background radiation and the radiation from medical and diagnostic radiology.

In view of the figures given by my hon. Friend and those given in Question No. 50 will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider including in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest statement from his advisers on the subject?

I will certainly pay attention to what the right hon. Lady has said, but I might be in trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, if I anticipate my Answer to Question No. 50

I hope that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, if I offer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) our warm congratulations and best wishes and affectionate greetings on his eighty-fifth birthday.

May I support the Leader of the Opposition, Sir, and, on behalf of the whole House, including the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, offer our most heartfelt good wishes to my right hon. Friend?

May I say that I most gratefully and eagerly accept both forms of compliment.