asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the overall cost of the overseas information services.

The estimated cost in 1959–60 is £16,964,140.

In spite of the welcome recent improvement, is the Chancellor aware that this sum is still miserably small compared with the needs and opportunities? Will he assure the House that it is his policy to expand these services in the future, particularly the unofficial kind, the British Council, the B.B.C., and also in appropriate cases to give support to unofficial projects furthering good will and understanding between this country and other countries?

On the general point, the expenditure on overseas information services has increased in the last three years from £13 million to approximately £17 million. A substantial part of that has gone to the British Council, with particular reference to its teaching of English and its library services overseas. I do take into account the last point the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the cost of the overseas information services is attributable to the British Council, the British Broadcasting Corporation external services, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Colonial Information Services, respectively.

The proportions in 1959–60 are, approximately:—

While it looks as though the B.B.C. and the British Council do well, is the Chancellor aware that there is a tendency when we have an overall budget like this for those bodies which have no Minister to speak for them generally to go to the wall? Will he particularly look at the B.B.C.' s position in this respect? Is the Chancellor aware that it looks as though the B.B.C. may have to cut its transmissions this year? I cannot believe that that is really the policy of the Government.

The hon. Member mentioned both the British Council and the B.B.C. The expenditure in 1959–60 of the British Council is rather more than £5 million. The expenditure of the B.B.C.' s external services is rather more than £6 million. In both cases there has been some increase in the last three years, much greater in the case of the British Council.

And in the B.B.C.' s overseas services?

If we look at the figures for the last three years, under each of the services which were the subject of the hon. Member's Question we see there has been an increase.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how far he personally is responsible for these allocations?

Overseas Ministers are responsible for their own information policy and output. My task is to coordinate the expenditure within the permitted ceiling.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many information posts are maintained overseas; and how many of these are staffed by a single information officer.

There are overseas 117 United Kingdom information posts, of which nine are staffed by one United Kingdom-based officer only, and three by one locally-recruited officer only.

While welcoming the apparent reduction in the number of one-man offices, may I ask whether the Chancellor agrees with the Drogheda Report that if possible these offices should be wound up because of their obvious drawbacks?

These one-man offices are for the most part sub-offices of main offices. One, that of Kingston, Jamaica, is shortly to become a two-man office. I agree with the hon. Member that, in general, a one-man office working alone suffers great disadvantages. For the most part, these are sub-offices of main ones.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has for the prescription of bronchitis or emphysema under the Industrial Injuries Act; and to what extent this question has been considered recently by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

None, Sir. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council gives a considerable amount of attention specifically to these respiratory diseases and I am keeping it informed of the results of the extensive research which is currently in hand.

Would the Minister agree that research is pointing more and more clearly to a causal connection between working in a dusty atmosphere and suffering from these chest complaints? In particular, are there not a great number of cases in which it is evident that people with pneumoconiosis have bronchitis or emphysema associated with it? Does that not mean that the case has become stronger for prescribing these diseases in relation to persons who work in dusty conditions?

With regard to the first point, I am bound to say that I should not like to take up any position on this until I have considered much more evidence. However, I do not share the hon. Member's impression of the general way in which the evidence now stands as far as the association with pneumoconiosis is concerned. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit of the Medical Research Council is working on the specific problem of the possible relationship of the diseases.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) what proposals he has for the prescription of deafness under the Industrial Injuries Act, in respect of those working under very noisy conditions; and to what extent the question has been considered recently by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council;

I have no such proposals, Sir. These are both diseases which the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council keeps under review as part of its normal duties and arrangements have been made to keep it informed of research work having a bearing on whether these diseases should be prescribed.

With regard to deafness, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Department pays a very large number of war disablement pensions to men who have deafness caused or aggravated by service in the Royal Artillery? Is there not a very close parallel in the case of people who work in conditions of loud noise? One thinks particularly of boilermakers. Will the right hon. Gentleman give very urgent consideration to the problem?

I think the hon. Gentleman somewhat overstates the reference to the disease by, not the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council but the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee, which, as I read it, did not amount to a recommendation for prescription. With regard to noise, there are, as the hon. Member knows, very many cases of deafness, some of which are wholly non-industrial in origin. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health has recently announced an inquiry into the general question of noise.

asked the Minister of Power what representations were made to him by the Scottish Gas Consultative Council in August last, about helping them to alleviate the immediate burden of an increase in the price of gas; and what reply he made.

The Council conveyed to my right hon. Friend's predecessor its opinion:

"that the interest charges on exceptional projects should, during construction, be capitalised,… and that … the Government should afford financial assistance to avoid increases in the price of gas".

Can the hon. Gentleman give me any reason why the first of the two suggestions made by the Council did not receive a little more favourable consideration than an abrupt dismissal? Were any reasons given to the Council? Apart from that, does he now realise that the way in which this increase in the price of gas has been brought about has received, and merited, widespread criticism throughout Scotland? Does he appreciate that it would be worth while looking into the public relations side of the Scottish Gas Consultative Council?

As to the first part of the supplementary question, consideration was given, and always will be given, to any representation made by a consultative council, but the Scottish Gas Board, as far as I am aware, has not asked for either form of assistance suggested and, indeed, legislation would probably be necessary to effect either of them.

asked the Minister of Power what is the percentage of sulphur contained in fuel oil used in this country from Middle East sources; and what proportion of the fuel oil burned in this country comes from Middle East sources.

On the assumption that the hon. Member intends to include fuel oil made in this country from Middle East crudes, the answer to the first part of the Question is about 3 per cent. on average. The answer to the second part is about 75 per cent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sulphur burnt in fuel oil from Middle East sources is just as harmful as that from coal burnt in non-smokeless appliances, and will he consult his colleagues with a view to amending the Clean Air Act so that oil installations burning Middle East oil are not automatically exempt from the provisions of that Act and so that coal is able to compete on equal and fair terms with oil?

I agree with the hon. Member that fuel oil is about equal to coal in terms of affecting the atmosphere. But one cannot generalise. Fuel oils, like coals, range widely in sulphur content. On average, each ton of Middle East fuel oil has twice as much sulphur as a ton of coal, but fuel oil has a higher calorific value than coal and each ton of fuel oil does the work of 1½–2 tons of coal. I am advised that the comparison goes, if anything, against coal, but I will take note of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is the general policy of the Government to rely as little as possible on the supply of oil from Middle East sources and to increase the purchase of oil from other sources?

That is an entirely different question.

asked the Minister of Power what is the amount spent annually on research into the uses of coal by the Gas Council, the National Coal Board, and the Central Electricity Generating Board, respectively; and what is the amount spent annually on research by each of these industries on the uses of oil, including the gasification of oil.

This year the Gas Council is spending £120,000 on research into coal gasification, and the National Coal Board and Central Electricity Generating Board £680,000 and £130,000, respectively, on coal utilisation. The Gas Council is spending about £230,000 on research into the gasification of oil under a programme which is designed to contribute also towards improving the economics of coal gasification; and another £240,000 on research into problems of gas purification and the treatment of by-products.

Having regard to the enormous turn-over of the coal industry, does not the Minister think that these amounts spent on research into the utilisation of coal are absolutely minute and that private enterprise would be spending a far higher proportion in similar circumstances? In particular, does he not think it is scandalous that the Gas Council, operating a nationalised industry, should be spending £230,000 on research into the gasification of oil? Ought not his interests to be to persuade it to spend more money on research into the gasification of coal, a commodity which he ought to be protecting?

The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is, as I pointed out in my original answer, that the research which the Gas Council is carrying out is intended to lead to the gasification of coal. In answer to the general question which the hon. Gentleman has raised, I would repeat an answer which I gave him some time ago, which was that these matters of the further uses of coal were at the present time being examined by the Wilson Committee, which will shortly, I hope, be reporting, and if it suggests other lines of research I shall give every consideration to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the gas industry is spending any money on research into the production of non-poisonous gases?

As I said at the end of my answer to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), £240,000 is being spent on research into the problems of gas purification, with which that subject is associated.

Is it not absurd that after years of propaganda about the need for research into the uses of coal —by-products and the like—and after the appointment of a scientific adviser to the National Coal Board in 1946 when the industry was nationalised, there is now talk about setting up a committee to consider the use of coal for by-products?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will have only another month or two to wait before we have a further authoritative statement on which to base our plan.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give an approximate estimate, on the basis of figures supplied to him for Table 112 of his Statistical Digest, of the amount of fuel oil consumed by dual-fired electricity generating stations in 1959 or in any recent convenient 12 month period.

Just over 3 million tons of oil were used in dual-fired boilers in 1959, out of a total fuel oil consumption at power stations of approximately 4 million tons.

In view of the state of the coal industry, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that in future the amount of fuel oil consumed by dual-fired power stations is kept to the minimum?

I said in the debate last week that I was considering possible further modification of the programme for power stations. I take this opportunity of apologising for misleading hon. Members when, in answer to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I said that the total possible displacement of the use of oil in power stations would benefit coal to the extent of 4 million tons. In fact, it would mean that 4 million tons of oil would not be burnt which would benefit coal to the extent of about 7½ million tons.

asked the Minister of Power what was the prospective shortage of British coal for power generation, as then estimated by the National Coal Board, which compelled the former Central Electricity Authority in 1955, with the support of the Government, to adopt a programme for oil burning at a number of power stations; what were the subsequent revisions of these estimates, and the reasons therefor; and what was the nature and coal equivalent of the original and revised oil-burning programmes.

In 1955, it was estimated that the total fuel requirement of the power stations in 1965 would be about 12 million tons more than the available electricity coal. This gap altered during the next few years as the result of changes in the estimated total fuel requirements of the power stations, the availability of coal for them and the nuclear programme. It has now been eliminated. The original oil conversion programme provided for the consumption of about 5½ million tons of oil (equivalent to 9 million tons of coal) in 1965; the modifications already made to the programme have reduced this to 3 million tons of oil (equivalent to 5½ million tons of coal).

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made it clear that this programme was not originated because of any superior economic qualities of oil as distinct from coal. His Answer shows that as the National Coal Board is now in very great trouble there is no economic reason why we should not switch over as fast as we can to coal burning in these stations.

asked the Minister of Power what plans have been drawn up by the Central Electricity Generating Board to convert present or planned oil-burning power stations to coal burning.

The Generating Board is discussing with the oil companies concerned a possible modification of its long-term contracts for oil supplies, and I cannot say more while these discussions are in progress.

Following upon what the right hon. Gentleman said in the debate the other day, we well understand the rather delicate nature of this matter and I will not press him further.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give an approximate estimate of the quantity and value of liquid methane gas imported by the gas industry in 1959 or in any recent convenient 12 month period.

asked the Minister of Power what volume of liquid gas has been imported since the commencement of the experiment with this form of fuel.

About 9,400 tons of liquid methane, equivalent to about 940 million cubic feet of town gas, were imported in 1959. I understand that the price paid for these shipments under the arrangements governing the experiment was about £165,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the importation of this methane is justified, in view of the very large amount of coal available for gasification?

These are experimental cargoes, and I have not yet had made to me any specific proposals for importing this methane on a commercial scale. I pointed out to the House two or three months ago that the importation of liquid methane would not necessarily be to the disadvantage of coal. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) has just been directing our attention to important processes for the gasification of coal Which provide a "lean" gas which needs enrichment by some such method as this.

How long are these experiments likely to continue? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the experiments are successful there should be some consultation with the National Coal Board?

I do not think they will continue for very much longer before certain proposals are made to me. I should not like to pronounce on the proposals before having had the chance of knowing what they are.

Will the right hon. Gentlemen present the report when the experiments are concluded?

No doubt I shall have an opportunity of reporting on the matter, which I know is something in which hon. Members are very interested.

asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the increased number of accidents recently in Manchester and Salford and other areas arising from broken gas mains, he will consider further precautions to prevent further accidents of this kind.

I am not aware of any recent increase in such accidents, but the Gas Council and area boards are seeking to reduce the risks by research as to causes and by survey of mains.

While appreciating the big efforts made in re-laying gas mains and constant inspection, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these accidents are still occurring and are increasing? Does not that suggest that a nonpoisonous gas is the main answer to the problem?

I repeat that, in the district mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the number of accidents from fractured mains is decreasing and not increasing. I appreciate what he has said about the activities of the Board, which is continuing to keep this matter under review by testing and drilling. The Board will not relax its efforts to secure further safety from fractured mains.

asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in the production of nontoxic gas; and if he will give general directions to the gas boards to accelerate its use.

Modern processes for making gas from both coal and oil produce gas of low toxicity. The problem of reducing carbon monoxide in gas from older plant is a difficult one which is being urgently pursued, and no general direction is necessary.

While the completely non-toxic gas which has been produced at Basle is very expensive, is it not the case that gas can be produced with a sufficiently low proportion of carbon monoxide to avoid injury? Can the hon. Gentleman say roughly how long he estimates it will take to implement the recommendations of the Institution of Gas Engineers to the Gas Council, recommendations which the Council accepted? Will he publish that report which I understand still to be private?

Several methods are known for reducing toxicity, but their employment would involve a substantial increase in gas prices and new capital commitments. The modification of existing works would take many years. The Gas Council is seeking a more economical method, and its research department is actively engaged in examining one of the three methods with a view to improvement and to making it an economical proposition.

asked the Minister of Power what methods of gasification of coal have been considered by his Department and by the industries responsible to his Department; which of these methods are ready for use now; and which of these methods are British in origin.

My Department, and the industries concerned, keep under examination all gasification developments at home and abroad. Their current research projects include work on slagging gasification and on the hydrogenation of coal.

Is it not indicative of the slothful attitude of the Government towards the whole subject of the gasification of coal and the niggardly amounts which they have spent on it that we have had to take a process from Germany instead of developing our own? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall be in a position to install a high-pressure gas grid system between London and Manchester to provide the country—at any rate, the Midlands—with a supply of cheap gas?

We have taken certain processes from Germany because, as the hon. Member knows, Germany was subjected to certain pressures in the 1930s and 1940s which were very different from the pressures to which this country was subjected. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about a national grid system, since that is a rather different matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the whole subject and intensify the work of producing a proper method of gasification of coal, which could have been found years ago if enough money had been spent on it, and do something about it?

I am continually looking at the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in this country we are developing the Lurgi process in two different places. The Lurgi method is the most economical so far discovered for the total gasification of coal.

asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the availability of the various types of smokeless fuels; and if he will give particular and up-to-date figures concerning the North Thames Gas Board, on the basis of figures supplied to him for the Ministry of Power Statistical Digest, Table 90.

Coke supplies are abundant. Supplies of other manufactured fuels are generally better than last year, though there are still unsatisfied demands for some. Anthracite supplies to the inland market should be increased this year, though not enough to meet all demands for the top qualities. The North Thames Gas Board made 1,329,000 tons of coke for sale in 1959; stocks at the end of the year were 630,000 tons.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very detailed reply. Would it be fair to say that borough councils in this area need not feel inhibited in any way in declaring fresh smokeless zones because of their anxiety about the availability of fuel?

Up to the moment, it has not been necessary to turn down any request for the declaration of a smokeless zone.

Will the hon. Gentleman give as much publicity as possible to the fact that the creation of a smokeless zone does not mean that coal cannot be burned in that area? Will he point out that the amount of smokeless fuel now available is quite extensive and that, if the public demand it, the Coal Board can produce far and away more than is now produced?

I think that that is the position. There are some shortages at the moment, but plans are in hand to increase the supply.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he has given is not entirely satisfactory, since coke is not entirely suitable for use for certain types of fires in smokeless zones? Will he investigate other types of smokeless fuels, and when will he make a statement about them?

The hon. Member is quite correct when he refers to coke generally, but not correct when speaking of all cokes. We have premium fuels such as "Cleanglow." Under the British Standard specification for coke, "Clean-glow" is being produced and a new fuel called "Gloco", which is an improved coke, is being produced and purchased on an ever widening scale. Some cokes not suitable for open fires are being produced for closed appliances to the British Standard specification, which should lead to a better supply in the required areas.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give directions to the National Coal Board under Section 31 (1) of the Act of 1946 to include in their annual accounts a cumulative statement of compensation paid in respect of property damaged by subsidence from 1947 onwards.

No, Sir. I consider the present form of the Board's accounts, which show items of expenditure, including compensation for surface damage, in the year of account only, fully meets the requirements of the Act.

I appreciate that Answer, but I cannot see why instructions are not given to the National Coal Board to search out the facts about such subsidence and the cost thereof to the coal mining industry. Miners and others directly interested in the industry should know what subsidence costs the Board. I hope the Minister will—

The hon. Member must couch his observations in an interrogative form.

If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will try to get him the figures or something on the lines of the figures that he would like, but I cannot agree to do what he would like me to do with the accounts.

asked the Minister of Power if he will state the total amount of taxpayers' money invested in the mining industry, and the total losses to date since the coal mines were nationalised.

At the end of 1959, the Board's outstanding liability to the Minister in respect of compensation and capital advances was £941 million. The Board's accumulated deficit on profit and lass account, less reserve fund, was about £50 million.

Will my hon. Friend not agree that the mining industry has followed in every detail the golden rule set by all nationalised industries—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like B.E.A."]—which is to give the public worse service and worse quality at greatly increased cost to the consumer? I wonder whether my hon. Friend will clear up one point which is causing concern? Which does his Department consider the biggest millstone round the necks of the taxpayers, the mining industry or British Railways?

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the National Coal Board is doing everything in its power to work the mines efficiently and give satisfaction to its customers.

The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) asked about the total losses to date. Would the Minister agree that in the 1958 Report of the National Coal Board we see that profits were over £180 million from coal workings, despite the fact that about £60 million was lost on the importation of foreign coal? Would he not also agree that in respect of interest payments, which the hon. and gallant Member is concerned about, the Board has paid back to the Ministry about £240 million in interest rates since it came into existence.

I should like to correct one misunderstanding which might arise from the Question. In fact, it is not taxpayers' money. The money is paid from the Consolidated Fund, and the National Coal Board has not defaulted in its responsibility to pay interest, or to repay principal.

Has my hon. Friend neglected to observe that in his original Answer he referred to a loss on the trading account of the National Coal Board of £50 million up to 31st December, 1959? Having regard to continuing losses which he himself admits during the current year, would he not now admit that the figure of loss at the end of this year, 1960, might reach the astronomical figure of £100 million, all of which has to be provided by the taxpayer and nobody else?

My hon. Friend is giving his idea of the loss at the end of next year—

I did not say next year. I said this year.

—at the end of this year, but he never at any time produces any facts to back up his statements. His statements are very often of a very wild nature, and this is no exception.

In any event, are we not indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) for giving such wide publicity to the vast amount of money being paid in compensation for pits, many of which were job lots?

Do I understand from the Minister that, in spite of this sniping against the National Coal Board—

Not sniping against, voting against.

—the Government do not intend to denationalise the coal industry? Could we have that assurance?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

On a point of order. In view of the wild reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

I repeat my request that hon. Members should adhere to the traditional formula.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I delete "wild" and substitute "highly unsatisfactory".

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the average output per coal miner each year since the coal industry was nationalised, on the basis of figures supplied to him for compiling Tables 11 to 14 of his Statistical Digest.

Average output per man year rose from 265 tons in 1947 to 305 tons in 1951. It was 294 tons last year with permission, I will circulate the res of the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are extremely disappointed that he has knocked the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) for six and made him too timid to ask a supplementary question? Is it not a fact that output per man-shift, either on that level or on the price of coal, shows that the British coal industry is one of the most valuable coal industries in the world and is, indeed, a very great credit both to the National Coal Board and to the miners?

On the question of output per man-shift, which in some ways is a better yardstick than output per man-year, since it eliminates variations in work-time, it has moved upwards, with no substantial reverse, from 1·09 tons in 1947 to 1·26 tons in 1958, and to 1·33 tons in 1959.

In view of the fact that there has been at least a 75 per cent. increase in mechanisation in the mines, ought not production to be considerably higher? I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clear up the one point which is bothering us on these benches? Which does his Department consider the biggest millstone round the necks of the taxpayers, the mining industry or British Railways?

I would not seek to answer the last part of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, but I am not aware that the Government consider either of the two industries a millstone round the necks of the taxpayers.

Is the Minister also aware that we very much welcome his change of attitude? He left the coal mines when they were nationalised and has now come back to them because he has seen how well the industry is working, and he is defending it very effectively.

That is scarcely a supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper.

Is it not the case that in two very important regions of the Coal Board, which are becoming increasingly important within the general plan. we have already reached the stage of 40 cwt. per man-shift?

I have not the actual figures, but I know that in the Midlands area the figure of 40 cwt. per man-shift has been reached.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisations has yet met to consider the recommendations of the special conference on Air Navigational Aids; what were the decisions of such meeting; and if he will make a statement.

The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has not yet met to consider the recommendations of the special meeting on shortrange air navigation aids. It is expected to do so during the course of the next few months.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the terms on which Comet aircraft are being supplied by British European Airways to Olympic Airways.

It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the terms of this contract.

We welcome the selling of aircraft to any foreign country, but can my hon. Friend say why there is so much secrecy about what should be a normal commercial matter? Is he aware that quite recently aircraft were sold to the Egyptian Government through a recognised agency? Why cannot he be more explicit about the terms of this deal, which we all welcome?

This is a normal commercial matter. The arrangement is part of a commercial agreement between B.E.A. and Olympic. It would be neither in B.E.A.' s interest nor the national interest to publish details of such matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are public agencies which undertake this type of deal, such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department? An operating industry like B.E.A. is not there to sell aircraft on the hire-purchase system over a period of years.

asked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for maintaining full employment in the aircraft industry.

The level of employment in the aircraft industry depends upon the total demand for its products, both military and civil. With Government approval, the industry is regrouping itself into larger and stronger units. This reorganisation will enable the industry to compete more effectively in world markets and so improve employment prospects.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister is responsible for the creation of the five mergers and that, as a result, thousands of men will gradually be squeezed out of their jobs in this industry. Is it not logical that the Minister should assume some responsibility for the future of the men who will lose their jobs as a result of the merger?

The correct argument is exactly the reverse of that put forward by the hon. Member. We believe that the reorganisation which the industry is itself carrying out will improve prospects for employment.

Will my hon. Friend or the Minister make a statement to the House about these very large mergers, stating to what extent, if at all, Government money is involved? There have been many newspaper reports, but the public is largely in the dark as to what is happening.

The Question is limited to the matter of employment. The hon. Member has raised a different question.

asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent he proposes to seek Government representation on the boards of the five groups now created by the mergers in the aircraft industry.

My right hon. Friend is not contemplating making any proposal of this kind.

Is it not the case that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money will now be invested in research, development and production in the aircraft industry? In view of that fact, surely there ought to be some form of public control, by way of Government representation on the boards of the new mergers.

There is no reason to suppose that the traditional methods of Government control, where public money is invested in industry—that is to say, through technical, financial and contractual means—would be any more effective as a result of Government representation on the boards.

As there is one Government company in existence—or a company controlled by the Government—namely, Short and Harland's. which has lost money over a number of years, would it not be a good thing to bring men from private industry into that company to try to make a profit?

That is an exceptional case, and is not covered by the Question, because it is not a group created by a merger.

In view of the very large sums of public money paid into this industry in one form or another, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for the Government's demanding some equity shareholding in these companies, which would carry with it the right of appointing directors to the boards?

There are other means of securing a return on the Government's expenditure, such as a levy on sales to other customers, as is provided for in contracts.

May I now ask my question on the wider aspect of the matter? Will there be a general statement by the Minister as to what is happening now in relation to these mergers?

My right hon. Friend is likely to make a statement shortly.

Are we to assume that there is to be no form of accountability to the public and this House for these vast sums of money?

There is accountability in the ways I have suggested, but the Government do not want to become involved in day-to-day management. The House has evidence to show that the industry has always shown a readiness to co-operate with its major customers.

asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has been made at the recent Paris meeting on Eurocontrol; to what extent Her Majesty's Government are co-operating; and what plan they have submitted.

Her Majesty's Government are co-operating fully in the studies of the Eurocontrol project. A technical planning group is now being set up and this will meet for the first time on 15th February.

Can the Minister say to what extent he visualises marrying the N.A.T.O. radar network to the civil control in order to overcome the problem of air congestion in Europe?

This group will work closely with a N.A.T.O. sub-committee and will consider these matters.

asked the Minister of Aviation, as representing the Minister for Science, to what extent Her Majesty's Government are assisting the development of the International Committee on Space Research; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom contribution to date.

Participation by United Kingdom scientists in the work of this non-Governmental scientific body, known as COSPAR, is the responsibility of the Royal Society and its British National Committee on Space Research. The Society knows that it is Government policy to welcome the development of COSPAR's arrangements for international collaboration. I am informed that our scientists have in fact played a full and important part in all COSPAR's activities and that the British National Committee have kept COSPAR fully informed of all relevant scientific developments in the United Kingdom.

Does not this seem to be an ideal body to receive Government recognition? Should not we have Government representatives on it, and not merely members of the Royal Society? Secondly, does not this seem to be an ideal avenue for the consideration of space research by East and West, enabling the matter to be kept on a peaceful plane? Is he satisfied with the contribution that we have made to date?

The position is that COSPAR is one of the committees of the International Council of Scientific Unions. It is a non-Governmental organisation, which means that there cannot be direct Governmental representation. I agree that this is a matter in which all countries can collaborate. It continues the research which was started during the International Geophysical Year.

On the general question of space research, can the hon. Member say whether the responsibility rests with his Department or with the Minister for Science?

The Question is concerned only with the position of the International Committee on Space Research. There is another Question on the Order Paper, for another day, on the general aspect of the matter.

asked the Minister of Health what reports he has received from medical officers of health about the problems revealed at orthopaedic clinics caused by teen-age girls' footwear; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

References to foot defects caused by unsuitable footwear are made from time to time by principal school medical officers in their published annual reports. Local health authorities, with the aid of publicity material provided by the Ministry and from other sources, continue to give publicity to the importance of foot health.

While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware of the very great importance of this matter? Does she not think that her right hon. and learned Friend might take the initiative, possibly in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Education, in trying to make more impact both on the supplier and the consumer about the dangers of this footwear?

My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly aware of the importance of this problem, but it is not an easy one because so often fashion is opposed to commonsense. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that an independent survey of the feet of children of various ages is to be undertaken as a research project. This is to be privately financed, but the details have not yet been fully worked out.

Having regard to what the hon. Lady has said, would she not agree that this question should be very much on the consciences of fashion dictators, who are not all concerned about the crippling of young women's feet?

No, I do not agree. It is really a matter for parents and others who have responsibility for children to try to impress upon them the importance of good footwear.

asked the Minister of Health whether the consumption of welfare foods in Sunderland shows an upward or downward trend; and what action is being taken.

There was an upward trend in 1959 in the amounts of orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets distributed in Sunderland. It is our constant endeavour, by persuasion and appropriate publicity, to secure that welfare foods are taken by those who need them.

asked the Minister of Health (1) what action he proposes to take regarding the recommendation in the Interim Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction, that any drug or pharmaceutical preparation which has an action on the central nervous system and is liable to produce physical or psychological deterioration, should be confined to supply on prescription; and

As I explained in my reply on 7th December, 1959, to the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) and Barking (Mr. Driberg), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as an interim and urgent measure, has asked the Poisons Board to advise him which of the substances referred to by the Interdepartmental Committee should be limited to supply on prescription, under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the Poisons Board has held a special meeting to consider the matter and that he expects its report very shortly.

May I remind the Minister that the whole question of the administration and consumption of this dangerous drug, preludin, was considered in this House a year ago after comments had been made in a coroner's court? Since then, there have been other fatalities. Could he not at least prohibit the sale of this drug without medical prescription? Will he read the report on the drug industry by a sub-committee of the Senate in the United States? In view of the fact that American firms are making such headway in this country, should we not take warning from the revelations which were made to the Senate last week?

The question of this drug can be dealt with only under the procedure of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. An interim report by the Inter-Departmental Committee was received on 21st January; the Poisons Board has already met, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be very shortly making his statement in regard to action.

Following the second part of the question asked by my right hon. Friend about the sub-committee of the Monopolies Committee of the Senate, will the Minister take particular action because companies subject to that investigation in America have parallel activities over here by virtue of their branch companies, and the position is getting very serious?

That raises rather wider questions than are implicit in the Question I have answered, but I shall certainly consider the points made by the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce a further extension of the poliomyelitis vaccine programme.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on his plan to extend the vaccination programme against poliomyelitis to higher age groups.

Yes, Sir. Having reviewed the progress that has been made in the existing programme of vaccination against poliomyelitis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the time has now come for extending it to cover all persons who at the time of their application for vaccination are under 40, and also certain additional special groups. The necessary circulars are being issued today.

While thanking the Minister, may I express the hope that his Answer will give universal satisfaction?

While we all welcome the statement of the Minister, will he tell us something more about the administration? This will call for three injections for each of these healthy adults. There will be a very large number, and it will mean a rather heavy burden on general practitioners. Does the Minister propose to have lunch-time clinics or evening clinics run by local authorities so that the work can be done there?

The detailed arrangements are for the local health authorities to make. One of the factors I have had in mind is the question of the mechanical work involved, to which the right hon. Lady rightly draws attention, but I am greatly encouraged by the fact that we have now vaccinated nearly 13 million people, more than half of them with three doses. This has meant a great effort on the part of local health authorities and general practitioners. I am sure we can look with confidence to their repeating their success with this extended group.

asked the Minister of Health what guidance he has given or proposes to give to regional boards and management committees, in the light of the recommendation of the Platt Committee on the Welfare of Children in Hospital, relating to the admission of the mother to hospital along with the sick child, especially when the child is under five.

I have invited hospital authorities to implement all the recommendations of this Committee that concern matters within their jurisdiction.

Is the Minister aware of the very successful experiment carried on in Amersham Hospital in this direction, which has been shown to be in the interests not only of children and parents but of nursing staff? In the light of that, will he pay particular attention to this recommendation and do his best to encourage other hospital authorities to follow suit?

I shall certainly look at that with interest in the context of all the information I shall be shortly getting. The hon. Member may recall that when I sent out the original memorandum I said that in twelve months I should call for a report on the action taken. I shall be shortly calling for that report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Germany is being allowed to commission a 2,000-ton submarine in contravention of the Paris Treaty of 1954 which limits German submarines to 350 tons.

There has been no contravention of the revised Brussels Treaty. By it, the Federal Republic of Germany undertook not to manufacture submarines of more than 350 tons displacement. The submarine of 1,600 tons to which the hon. Member refers is an old one that has not been salvaged for active service.

Is that not a quibble? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this submarine has been completely re-equipped, carries six torpedo tubes and can be switched instantly to warlike use? Is that not as dangerous and as illegal as making a completely new vessel? Is it not another encouragement to Germany to break the limitations on arms which at present exist?

The information I have is completely in conflict with that given by the hon. Member. In any event, the submarine would be subject to inspection by the Arms Control Agency of W.E.U.

Is it not the case that the Council of Ministers of Western European Union has received a communication from the Assembly that Western Germany should be allowed to manufacture submarines up to 2,000 tons? What is the attitude of the Government to this Recommendation? Do they approve or oppose it?

I understand it has not yet been received by the Council of Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the subject of the provision of nuclear weapons by Western Germany.

Under the terms of the Revised Brussels Treaty, the Federal Republic of Germany undertook not to manufacture nuclear weapons. That undertaking still stands.

That is all very well, but is it not a fact that the West German Federal Government are now to be provided, under the terms of the revised Treaty, with weapons of nuclear capability, and is that not altogether foreign to the policy previously declared by Her Majesty's Government and supported 100 per cent. by this side of the House? Is that not the position? Why this change? Can we trust the Germans with weapons of this character?

The position has been the same for a very long time, namely, that they would have weapons which might have nuclear capability if they had nuclear warheads. But there is no question of nuclear warheads being handed over to the German armed forces.

Are not some of the weapons which it is suggested should now be made available to Germany of such considerable range and of such a character that they would not be used except with nuclear warheads?

The main point is that the nuclear warheads would be under the control of the United States.

What is the use of quibbling on this fact? Why do not the Government come clean about this matter? What have they to conceal? Is it not obvious that if the West German Government are provided with missiles capable of a range of 60, 70 or even 100 miles, as is the position at present, they would have no value whatever without nuclear warheads? What is the purpose unless it is intended to provide warheads? Why do the Government maintain that the control is vested not in the German Government but in some other authority? How do they know that the Germans will not use them without any consultation?

I do not think it is a quibble to say that the nuclear warheads would not be under the control of the German armed forces but would be under the control of the United States Administration. It is a policy which has been discussed before in this House, but as I understand there will be an opportunity of discussing it again, probably next week, I think that would be the best time to do so.