asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons lost National Insurance unemployment credits in 1959 owing to their failure to prove their availability for Saturday work.

I regret that ehe information requested is not available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this qualification does not apply to all who shun Saturday work, but only to those who honestly and frankly declare their intention of so doing? Does not he agree that with the spread of the five-day week in industry and commerce it is high time that this slightly archaic and restrictive qualification was abolished?

This is not a difficulty that, in practice, generally arises in the case of regular five-day week workers. It arises—as it did in the case with which my hon. Friend is concerned—generally only among part-time workers, and we have very little trouble with it.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what additional staff and upgradings of posts will be needed for the extra work on the graduated pensions scheme; and what is likely to be the increased annual cost of administration of his Department on this account.

It is estimated that an additional 832 posts will be required by my Department by the end of this financial year. As regards the ultimate annual administrative cost for this work, an estimate of £4 million was given in the Financial Memorandum on the National Insurance Bill. This figure includes the cost of extra staff, office machinery, accommodation, postal and other services and the cost to the Inland Revenue Department of collecting graduated contributions. We have not as yet, and shall not have for some time, sufficient experience to know to what extent this estimate will be subject to modification.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what will be the total pension at age 65 years of a man, now aged 40 years and earning average earnings, under the proposals of the new graduated scheme becoming operative in April, 1961.

On the illustrative basis as to increases in earnings set out in the Government Actuary's Report on the financial provisions of the National Insurance Bill, 1959, and on the quite unrealistic assumption of no changes in National Insurance benefits over the next 25 years, the total would be £3 11s. single or £5 1s. married.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman talk about the unrealistic possibility of no increase in the basic pension in view of his attitude in the last two years? Can he say, in view of these deplorable figures and the future which this man will have to face in twenty-five years' time, how this figure squares up to the prophecy made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, when he said that the people's standard of living would be doubled in twenty-five years?

I should have thought it was reasonable to say that it was unrealistic to assume no increase in benefits for twenty-five years if one happens to belong to a Government which has raised them three times in nine.

Does not the Minister think that this is an unworthy objective when we remember that after all this time of payments of additional sums the married pensioner will be getting 7s. 6d. less than the present pensioner with the average supplement from National Assistance?

The hon. Gentleman knows that he is not comparing like with like and that, as his Question was framed, it was answered on an admittedly unrealistically pessimistic basis.

The Minister is talking about unrealistic calculations. Would he not agree that we passed a Bill a year ago which makes provision for raising contributions but expressly denies any provision whatever for raising benefits? Does this not suggest that the Government are, in fact, thinking in terms of the future when there will be no increase in State benefits, but might possibly be increases in private insurance benefits?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question shows a surprising failure to recollect the provisions of the Measure to the discussions on which he himself made a notable contribution.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will estimate the additional requirements of manpower for the administration of the new insurance scheme; and if he will site the new central administrative office buildings required in Scotland or in one of the other areas where labour is available.

As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). As regards the second part of the Question, no new central administrative office is required.

In the event of such a decision, would the Minister agree that the site ought to be in an area of high unemployment?

No new central administrative office is required. The question where it should be, therefore, surely does not arise.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether any new computing equipment has been sought or provided for his Department for the administration of the new insurance scheme; and what will be the cost of such equipment.

Yes, Sir. An EMIDEC 2400 computer system has been ordered for installation at the Central Office in Newcastle, for the graduated pensions scheme work, at a cost, with its ancillary equipment, of about £600,000.

In view of these very substantial overheads, and because no doubt many others will be incurred, is the Minister satisfied that the very substantial rise in overheads is justified by the fact that the numbers of pensioners will remain stationary?

The hon. Member is wrong on the hypothesis on which he ended his supplementary question. On the first part, the answer is that the more economical way of carrying out the complex administrative tasks involved is by investing in the most modern and up-to-date equipment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what will be the cost this year to his Department of additional man-power, and overtime, attributable to the administrative preparations for the introduction of the new scheme of insurance in April, 1961.

Approximately £300,000.

That is the very point I was trying to make in my supplementary question to my first Question, namely, that certain classes of pensioners will not receive any benefit in respect of the very substantial overheads.

As the hon. Member knows, this Measure will make a very considerable advance. I am anxious to keep administrative costs as low as possible, and I think I am doing so.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to complete his review of the rates and amounts of benefit required by Section 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, following the Second Quinquennial Report of the Government Actuary.

I hope to lay the formal report required by Section 40 later this week.

Is the Minister aware that time is getting on? By the time we come back from the Summer Recess a year will have gone by since the election. The whole country is expecting Her Majesty's Government to honour the pledges given at that time. Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the introduction of the new graduated scheme, with changes in contributions next April? Is there any hope that we will have a Bill to do something about this in the autumn, in advance of the introduction of the elaborate paraphernalia for the new graduated scheme?

I cannot see how at least six of those supplementary questions arise out of my original Answer. The Question relates simply to the formal report, which, now that pension rights are kept regularly under review, has lost a good deal of the significance it had.

Both in his original Answer and in his answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Minister said that he proposed to lay his formal report. Will he bear in mind that when the first report of his predecessors was issued there was general disappointment in the House because the Minister made it so short and formal that he did not fulfil the obligations placed upon him? Will he make sure that this one will meet the requirements of the Section?

The right hon. Gentleman probably knows better than anybody else what was intended by the Section. As I said in my earlier Answer, I shall discharage my statutory duty, as I am bound to do, of making a report, although in the changed circumstances of today this has lost a great deal of its former significance.

Will the Minister bear in mind that he is asked by the Section to report in the light of changed circumstances. That is why we expect a good report this time.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not flattered my English prose excessively. But I have studied Section 40.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has completed the review he undertook to make about the anomalies arising from linking insurance under the pre-1948 Acts with benefits under the existing Act; and what remedies he will propose.

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the matters to which he refers are part of the highly complex transitional arrangements which were made by and under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and which it would hardly be possible to alter substantially after this lapse of time. I am, however, considering whether certain minor adjustments might not be made to help in certain cases.

Is the Minister aware that he told me that on 18th March and that I thought it might be a good idea after three months to remind him again? Will his review cover the case of a constituent of mine who had paid full contributions since 1948 but, because he was denied the opportunity of contributing before that and although he has been insured for over 20 years, he could not get a full pension and is suffering to the extent of 3s.? Will that sort of case be included?

My recollection of the case of the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that he was not denied an opportunity to contribute but there was, in fact, a contribution deficiency because he did not contribute. I should not like to add to my Answer at this stage, but if the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter he will have some knowledge of its fearsome complexity. I am hoping to be able to deal with a minor but rather acute aspect of the matter.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection is almost accurate. In fact, my constituent was denied an opportunity of contributing because he was over the income limit. It is that type of case to which I refer.

That is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me at this time to start revising all the legislation of the past 25 years.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how long under his Regulations a person has to be unemployed before he is entitled to supplementation of his unemployment benefit by National Assistance.

There is no set period for which a person has to be unemployed before he can get assistance from the Board in supplementation of his benefit. The question of need is decided in the light of the individual circumstances of the person concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of hardship is caused to a number of men, particularly lowly-paid workers, because they have to wait three or four weeks before getting unemployment insurance? The right hon. Lady gave reasons why, but should not some payment which they receive before they cease employment be regarded as capital payment?

Each case is and has to be dealt with on its merits. The points made by the hon. Gentleman—low earnings while in work and the length of time a person has been earning them—are part of the facts which the board has to weigh in deciding whether help by National Assistance Board standards is necessary.

Is the Minister aware that I have been informed that there is a general rule practised throughout the country that any person asking for National Assistance may not expect to get it till at least three or four weeks after losing his job? Is there such a regulation, and does the Minister know about it, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?

As I told the House, there is no firm rule and cases are dealt with on their merits.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the deficit or surplus of National Insurance contributions towards unemployment benefit over unemployment benefits paid in 1959.

No part of the income from National Insurance contributions is specifically appropriated to expenditure on particular benefits.

Will the Minister tell me why it is not possible to tell the House which part of the money paid is allocated to particular services? Is it that the Government have sacked the Government Actuary, or is it that the lump sum payment for a lump benefit disguises the fact that the contributor is being made to pay more and more for his insurance benefit?

No, it is because Parliament has enacted that there shall be one overall contribution covering all benefits.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what percentage of average adult male earnings the single adult male unemployment benefit represented in 1938; and by how much the present single adult male unemployment benefit would require to be raised to bring it to the same ratio with present adult male earnings.

24·6 per cent. and 16s. 8d.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me last week to look over the whole field. I was looking back as far as 1938 and he was going back to 1951. Does not the Minister agree, now that we have looked at this wider vista, that there is a compelling case for an upward trend in the benefits about which I inquired? At the Minister's request we have looked at the wider field. If he accepts the evidence which he has said that the House should look at, he will be compelled to agree that we should increase the benefits.

The hon. Gentleman has cast his eye over the field in a somewhat selective manner, overlooking, for example, the fact that the rate of unemployment benefit at the date he selected was half as much again as the rate of retirement pension, and also that there has been a very considerable increase in the earnings of the working population under a Conservative Government.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance which regulation lays it down that capital assets disregarded in National Assistance assessments shall be periodically inspected and a limit placed upon the amount of such capital that may be treated as income before incurring a reduction in National Assistance supplementation.

No regulation is, of course, required to enable the Board to carry out its duty of checking from time to time that a person's need of assistance is correctly assessed under the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, in relation to his current resources. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any case in which he thinks that a person's capital assets are not being correctly dealt with, I will ask the National Assistance Board to make inquiries.

The Minister has not answered my question. I am asking whether he approves of or knows of a regulation which states that capital which has been assessed shall be regularly inspected and a limit placed on the amount which can be spent? Is the Minister aware that this practice goes on, and does he approve of it?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my Answer, which began with the words, "No regulation…" Secondly, the method of dealing with expenditure by the assisted person to which he took exception four years ago—as he may recall—is one which has been very substantially modified.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of allowances paid by the National Assistance Board in supplement of sickness benefit at the latest available date.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 30th May to the hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. Millan).

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state for 12 months, to the nearest convenient date, the number of cases reported to the Mansfield local office as incapacitated by the disease known as Dupuytren's contracture.

In general, our local office records do not enable details to be given of claims for benefit at individual offices in respect of incapacity from specified diseases, but it is within the recollection of the Mansfield office that there has been one claim for sickness benefit for Dupuytren's contracture in recent months.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is evidence of a growth in the number of sufferers from this disease? Will he consider prescribing it and adding it to the schedule of industrial diseases?

I was not aware that the number of sufferers from this unusual disability is growing in number. It was considered by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council not so long ago, but the Council did not feel able to make a definite recommendation. If the hon. Gentleman has more evidence, will he let us have it? As he will know from his own service in the Department, it will be considered with sympathy and care.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary noted that in occupations where there is considerable gripping, such as the wooden handle of a pick, or where there is excessive stretching, such as with dippers in the pottery industry who have to stretch out their palms very widely, this condition is fairly frequent? If that should be the case, does not that support what my hon. Friend asks for?

May I also ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) to let us have the evidence? I do not believe that all medical opinion would support the view that the origin of this disease is other than constitutional.

I believe it is more than two years now since the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council examined the question and I am certain there is evidence that the number of sufferers from the disease is growing. Will the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider what he has said and allow the Council to look at it again?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the death grant rate of payment has been increased since 1948; and if he will give details and dates.

Death grant first became payable in July 1949. The rates were increased from 3rd February, 1958. by 25 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that almost all other benefits have been doubled because of the increase in the cost of living? Why has not this benefit been raised to a more realistic level? Does not the Minister realise that burial costs have also gone up? Will he therefore do something to see that this grant is raised to a more realistic amount?

As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my Answer, I conducted through Parliament the only Measure by which this grant has been increased since it was initiated.

Surely that does not mean that it has been increased sufficiently to meet present needs? In the review which has been promised and which is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statutory report to the House, will he consider this point?

I do not think that the grant comes within my Section 40 review.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider extending the payment of death grants on the death of men barn before 5th July, 1883, and women born before 5th July, 1888.

No, Sir.

However justified the exclusion of these people may have been in July, 1948, is it not time that the Minister looked at this and similar cases again? These are a dwindling number of people and the amount of money required to pay these grants would be less every year. Can the Minister look at this matter again?

No, Sir. As I think the hon. Member knows, this was a new benefit under the 1946 Scheme and was not included in the previous legislation. The people concerned cannot in the nature of things have paid any contributions towards this scheme and, therefore, for this benefit.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what new proposals he has for relieving the hardship of retired pensioners who have to live on their basic pension; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, in view of the recent increases in food prices, he will substantially increase retirement pensions this year.

So far as the rates of retirement pension are concerned, I have nothing to add to what I said in the debate on 20th May. In reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), I would add that it is not necessary for any retirement pensioner to live on the standard rate of retirement pension, and that the real value of the scale rates of National Assistance was increased last September.

In reply to the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I would invite his attention to the fact that Whereas food prices rose 3 per cent. between 1957 and 1959 the expenditure of people whose main source of income was pension or assistance increased by 10 per cent with a real improvement in their diet.

Is the Minister aware that that disappointing reply fails to meet the problem of which we are all aware? Is he aware that retirement pensioners have to go to the National Assistance Board if they are not to live on their basic pensions or on their families, and that the old-age pensioners feel that they are entitled, as a measure of the country's gratitude to them, at least to an adequate basic pension which will not require them to have to answer all the questions which the National Assistance Board puts to them?

The House has discussed this subject many times and has accepted the view that the National Assistance Board has administered these benefits with tact and discretion and in a way that is unlikely to upset anybody's understandable sensitivities. As regards the hon. Gentleman's question, it is framed on the wholly false hypothesis that there are pensioners who have to live on their basic pensions.

Will the Minister stop blinding the House with statistics and examine the Ministry of Food Gazette prices during the month of May, when he will find that they have all gone up? Will he try to realise that once winter arrives, when the old people will stay indoors rather than go out, they have to meet higher coal prices and electricity and gas charges? Should not something be done this year without fail to try to bring about a substantial increase in these retirement pensions?

As the hon. Gentleman refers particularly to food prices, he will be glad to have noticed that the food element in the Interim Index of Retail Prices in the first four months of this year was lower than in the first four months of last year.

Mean.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost, after the readjustment of National Assistance expenditure, of increasing the basic rate of retirement pensions to £4 per week to men and women alike.

About £420 million a year immediately if confined to retirement pensions, or £615 million a year if other benefits were so raised. Both these figures are on the basis that no increase was made in the rates of National Assistance.

Is it on the basis that the Minister has deducted what the Government or the Treasury would save as a result of the pensioners being taken off National Assistance?

I did not put in the figure for Assistance because, if we had added that, which the hon. Member did not do, it would have increased still further the massive figures I have already given in reply to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many discretionary payments were made by the National Assistance Board to retirement pensioners during the first three months of 1960.

This information is not available; but the sample inquiry which is carried out at the end of each year showed that, at the end of 1959, discretionary additions for continuing special needs were being allowed in the assessment of 614,000 supplements to retirement pension.

How far do those discretionary payments extend? If, for example, we see rather expensive motor cars going around with "NAB 1", "NAB 2" or "NAB 3" on them, are we to assume that the occupants are in receipt of National Assistance Board discretionary payments?

The hon. Member's supplementary question seems to be based on three hypothetical questions.

And on hypothetical vehicles.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will consult the Chairman of the National Assistance Board on the Board's practice of treating future holiday payments as current income when a newly unemployed person makes application for National Assistance supplementation to his unemployment benefit.

No, Sir. I am informed by the National Assistance Board that in assessing need of assistance it takes account of these payments only when received.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these payments should be treated as savings, or rather as capital? Why all this niggardly treatment of working men when they become unemployed, in view of the tens of thousands of pounds that company directors get?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the duty of the National Assistance Board to assess need, and when payments of this kind are being made by an employer I would have thought it would have been quite unreasonable to have ignored them.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many of the National Assistance allowances made in Scotland are in respect of widows; and how many of these widows are drawing the 10s. pension.

It is estimated that about 67,000 widows were receiving weekly National Assistance grants in Scotland on 29th March last, of whom about 53,000 were receiving National Insurance pensions or benefits, including retirement pensions and rather less than 2,000 were receiving the 10s. pension.

Does not the right hon. Lady think it is time that the basic pension was raised and that anomalies regarding widows' pensions were done away with?

The hon. Lady will be aware that widows who are covered by the previous insurance scheme and are below the age of 50 are to that extent better placed than those in the present scheme, who are not eligible, unless they have children, until they are 50.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of recent financial improvements for certain categories of taxpayers, when he now proposes to improve the widows' pensions position.

The matters mentioned in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question are not for me, and I have no statement to make on the latter part.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the interests of justice and equity, it would be more suitable if there were co-ordination between the Treasury and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance? Would he not agree that if there is any money to be spared it would be fairer to let all widows have a bit of a go, particularly in view of the fact that many find it very difficult indeed to obtain money to keep themselves in contribution so that they may draw their retirement pension when they reach the appropriate age? Does he not think that, in the interests of those living on small fixed incomes, he had better have a talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I must not be lured, even by the blandishments of my hon. Friend, into answering questions about taxation. On the point of substance in her question, I have a great deal of sympathy with her concern in respect of the widow—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are you doing?"]—as has been evidenced in practice by the fact that in respect of widowed mothers with children we have made the biggest of all increases in National Insurance benefits and, in the case of elderly war widows, we have made an increase as recently as last year.

While appreciating everything that has been done about the widowed mother with children, is it not time that the Minister answered the request, made by hon. Members on both sides of the House for a long time, and got down to considering the seriousness of widowhood itself and the economic disabilities under which widows suffer, whether they are mothers or not?

The fact that we have made disproportionate improvements in certain aspects of the provision for widows, as the hon. Member has been good enough to acknowledge, is an indication that there is not very much between us on this issue.

Surely the figures show the inadequacy of the provision made, which is proved by the figures given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen)? The figures related only to Scotland as to the number of widows who, out of necessity, have to go to the National Assistance Board and ask it to supplement their basic allowance.

The hon. Member must not ignore the very fine part the National Assistance Board can and does play in relieving hardship.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the amount of the increase or decrease in the interest payments on the National Insurance Funds if the rate of such interest payments were at the same level as the present Bank Rate.

About £40 million increase in the annual investment income of the National Insurance Fund, the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Funds together calculating the interest on the cost price of investments.

This will be welcome and will certainly help the Minister in some of the calculations he is making, but why this tenderness to the Treasury in a matter of cheap borrowing when forcing up the cost of money to everyone else? Is it related to the prospects or hopes of the right hon. Gentleman arising out of future Government changes?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the expedient which he suggests would be no more and no less than an increased and imperfectly concealed Exchequer grant, and, in view of the increases in Exchequer grants in recent years, I do not think it is a reasonable proposition.

Does this mean that the Government are now swindling the National Insurance Fund as they are already swindling gilt-edged investors?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should suffer from the infection of using Wykehamist adjectives.

asked the Minister of Power if he will give the latest estimate of the extent to which the development of nuclear power will result in cheaper electricity for industrial and domestic consumers; and to what extent the original estimate of the contribution by the nuclear power industry to the export trade has been fulfilled.

As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper which I presented to Parliament on 20th June. The demand for nuclear power overseas has been less than was expected. British companies have obtained export orders for two nuclear power stations and hope to have the opportunity of tendering for others now in prospect.

Did the right hon. Gentleman see the leader in The Times last Tuesday with its rather severe comments on the "astonishing" recency of the errors which are now admitted in this field? Can he say whether the statement about cheaper power made in the White Paper is still based on the so-called gilt-edge basis? Can he also say whether his Department and the Board are still advised by the experts who made all these mistakes?

I am advised by the best experts available, and I am bound to take the advice of the experts because it is rather higher than my own knowledge of the subject. This is the best estimate available at present, and I do not think I could possibly improve upon it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the gilt-edge basis—

Mr. Nabarro.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these were not in fact errors at all, but that the margins have arisen from the fact that no scientist ten years ago could possibly estimate the amount of credit which would be forthcoming for the military product or the defence product—call it what you will—such as plutonium, and that the value of that in the event has proved to be a great deal less than was originally anticipated?

It was certainly estimated that the break-even date would be rather nearer 1960 than now appears likely. That was one of the reasons I explained last week why it seems wise to make this revision of the programme.

In any case, it is not a matter of ten years ago. Is it not the case that the programme was announced in 1955 and trebled in 1957, while the "deferment of the acceleration" came only last week?

The origin was in 1950.

I assume that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and not asking me a question.

Yes.

This procedure is very confusing for Mr. Speaker.

asked the Minister of Power how many nuclear power stations are now complete, under construction, or definitely scheduled for construction; what is the actual, or estimated, cost of each; for approximately how many years it is estimated that these stations can be used and what is the present intention regarding their future when they can no longer be used.

Apart from the Atomic Energy Authority stations at Calder Hall and Chapelcross, which produce electricity as a by-product, no nuclear power station has yet been completed in this country. Five are under construction for the electricity authorities and two more have been approved. It is still too early to say what individual stations will cost, as the electricity authorities are still negotiating variable items with the contractors. For calculating depreciation, the life of these stations has been taken as twenty years, though it may be longer. When the stations reach the end of their useful lives they will be dismantled, except the reactors which will be sealed up, and new stations may be built on the same sites.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that nuclear power generation for base load purposes is likely to become cheaper than conventional generation by 1970, why the Government have decided to curtail this industrial development.

The decision announced on 20th June relates only to the rate of ordering during the next few years. Nuclear stations to come into operation in 1970 need not be ordered until about 1965. The decision on what rate of ordering will then be desirable can be taken nearer the time.

Is not the Minister aware that his recent statement in the White Paper on nuclear power was a shocking indictment of Government planning and that the Government have led the atomic energy industry up the garden path? First of all, they encouraged a rapid build-up of the nuclear power industry; secondly, they disagreed with joining Euratom, virtually throwing the industry out of the export market and they have since twice cut back the development of this industry. Is it not a fact that the Government are purposely stultifying and discouraging the development of the nuclear power industry?

I cannot for a moment accept that the long-term prospects of this industry would be improved if I suggested that it should build a great many uneconomic stations in the next few years.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the statement in Command Paper No. 1083, that orders for nuclear power stations are to be placed at the rate of roughly one every year, which sites have been selected for the next ten years.

No decision has been taken about the sites of the stations to follow the seven already approved.

Will the Minister give an assurance that, as the building of nuclear power stations is being slowed down and as it is stated in the White Paper that the capacity of individual power stations is increasing, there is a diminishing need for the making of trial borings for the purpose of nuclear power stations on good agricultural land and on land of great natural beauty, such as are taking place at present?

The needs of the country for electricity will determine the number of power stations to be built. Great care is being taken by the Central Electricity Generating Board to make as little disturbance to natural beauty of the country as is possible.

asked the Minister of Power to what extent the National Coal Board's plans for the next few years will need to be modified consequent on the slowing down of the nuclear power programme.

The slow-down does not materially affect the prospect up to 1965 as seen in the Revised Plan for Coal published last October. The effect on subsequent years will be taken into account when the National Coal Board and the electricity industry discuss the latter's coal requirements.

In view of the slowing down of the nuclear power programme, will there by an expediting of the programme for the building of conventional power stations? If the speeding up of that programme involves an additional demand for coal, will not that have an effect on the coal industry after next year?

It will certainly have an effect, but the conventional power stations which will be built to replace the nuclear generating capacity which will now not be built will come into operation after 1965 and, therefore, will not substantially affect the estimates in the Revised Plan for Coal.

asked the Minister of Power whether he will state the imports of sheet steel for April and May 1960, and the comparable imports for 1959.

Imports of sheet steel this year amounted to 51,000 tons in April and 64,000 tons in May. Last year the figures were 23,000 tons and 19,000 tons, respectively.

Has the hon Member any thought to offer to the House as to the reason for this large increase, month by month throughout the whole of this year, in the importation of sheet steel? Within what period does he envisage that we shall be able to see the position restored?

The hon. Member received that information following a Question a few weeks ago. Imports will be essential for at least two and maybe three years, but they are not likely to reach significant tonnages. We must contrast exports with imports. It is estimated that this year about 450,000 tons will be imported and about 350,000 tons exported. The imports are, therefore, not a significant proportion of the usage in this country.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the uncertainty that exists concerning the supply and demand of British indigenous fuels, and the recent change of policy in the supply of refined fuels, if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire and advise on the fuel problems of the United Kingdom, with a view to giving guidance to the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Authority, and the Gas Council on future planning to meet potential demand.

No, Sir.

Does not the Minister agree that all the uncertainties in the power industries since 1951 have been most confusing to the general public? Will he further consider this in view of the information which has been passed to the Ministry? I am sure he will agree that the statements made by Sir John Cockcroft and Sir Christopher Hinton concerning nuclear power have proved to be completely fallacious.

The hon. Member asked for a Royal Commission to go into this question. I do not think that a Royal Commission would be able to stabilise the balance between supply and demand, which is always changing in a changing economy which is exactly the reason, as I announced, for the changed programme for nuclear energy.

Does not the Minister agree that this failure was mentioned in the Chamber three or four years ago and that it would be far better if a Royal Commission went into the matter properly and let the various authorities know what is the potential demand for a considerable number of years?

I do not think that a Royal Commission would tell me anything which I cannot know at present.

asked the Minister of Power how many conventional power stations are scheduled to be constructed during the next ten years.

The Generating Board plans to bring into operation seven thermal and two hydro-electrical power stations before the end of 1964. The number of new conventional stations to be built between 1965 and 1970 will depend on the growth of demand and on technical and economic developments.

Does not the Minister agree that this policy does not give the right kind of leadership to the coal industry, in view of the statement made by a past Minister that the last conventional power station would be built before 1965?

I do not know what lead the coal industry wants. I have announced that conventional capacity will be considerably increased between 1960 and 1964, and no doubt further conventional stations will be built after that.

asked the Minister of Power, in view of the continuing difficulties being experienced by the coal industry, if he will consult the President of the Board of Trade about the increasing quantity of fuel oil being imported into this country from refineries abroad, with a view to limiting those imports.

No, Sir.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that so far this year net imports of fuel oil have doubled compared with the same period last year? Has his attention been drawn to speeches made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board drawing the attention of the country and the coal industry to the critical situation which will arise if imported fuel oil is allowed in without any restriction at all?

I have certainly had my attention drawn to the suggestion that fuel oil is being dumped in this country, but so far I have found no evidence to support it. It is true that in the first three months of this year we produced slightly less fuel oil than we used, but the vast proportion of inland demand is satisfied by home refining and I am told that it is likely that over the year as a whole the amount produced from home refining will just about equal the demand.

asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to meet the threat to the British coal industry involved in the imports of cheap Russian oil at the equivalent rate of 500,000 tons a year.

In the twelve months to the end of April, imports of Russian fuel oil were less than 100,000 ton's. These imports are closely controlled by licence and the effect on the coal industry is one of the factors taken into account before licences are granted.

The Minister has not answered my Question, because at the moment imports are running at the equivalent rate of half a million tons a year and the price being charged for Russian oil is only £5 15s. a ton as against £6 10s. by other importers. Russian oil is now being dumped, with the connivance of the Government, at the expense of the coal mining industry.

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he is mistaken about the present rate at which Russian imports are continuing. As he knows, there was an exception, which was explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in the case of the Portland Cement Company, which for certain reasons was allowed a licence to import a tonnage of Russian oil. I think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are incorrect.

Have the Government considered applying their present antidumping powers to the sale of this oil, whether from Russia or elsewhere, which it is alleged is being sold here below the cost of production?

I would certainly consider applying anti-dumping laws if I were convinced that dumping was taking place.

Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the National Coal Board for such evidence?

I am always ready to receive evidence of dumping from wherever it may come.

Will my right hon. Friend say when the party opposite changed its policy on Russian imports into this country? In the past it has always been keen on increasing trade with the Soviet Union. What is the reason for this sudden change?

asked the Minister of Power how much has been paid in compensation for damage from mining subsidence since the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act came into force to the latest convenient date.

For the years 1951 to 1957, £22 million, including about £2 million contributed by the Exchequer and, for the years 1958 and 1959, £8 million.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is rather unjust that the National Coal Board should be held responsible for compensation for mining subsidence which occurred when the mines were operated by private enterprise? Does he not think that all this compensation should be borne by the Government, or paid for out of compensation given to the private mine owners?

All aspects of the responsibility for subsidence were fully discussed during the passage of the Bill, which, I think, received the general approval of the House.

Does not the Minister agree that this burden is placed upon a nationalised industry, that the damage was caused before the pits were nationalised and that, in justice, it should have been deducted from the compensation paid to the private coal owners?

That subject, too, was discussed during the passage of the Bill.

asked the Minister of Power if he can now say when he is to meet the new Chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the future of the coal-mining industry; and when he estimates the Government's new plan for coal will be ready.

No, Sir. The Revised Plan for Coal which was published last October still stands. If the hon. Member has questions of organisation in mind, I would refer him to my statements in the House last Monday.

The right hon. Gentleman said "No" to the first part of my Question. He indicated in the House last week that he intended to meet the Chairman. Will he state when he intends to meet him? The new Plan for Coal is not a plan; it is Government interference. Is not the Minister aware that every week the Press is publishing articles about what is to happen to the mining industry, that this is causing a great deal of confusion and unnecessary annoyance to the miners and that he ought to make a statement at the Box to clear the air as quickly as possible?

The hon. Member asked me when I should meet the new Chairman. The new Chairman is not yet the Deputy Chairman, and I think that it would be better to let him be Deputy Chairman and work in the industry for a short time before I begin my conversations with him. A statement will therefore not be made for some time. As for the hon. Member's suspicions, I ask him to await the details of any plan which emerges, which cannot be issued until I have had a chance to discuss it with the new Chairman.

Does not the Minister agree that when the Plan for Coal was revised we did not know that the atomic energy programme was to be cut back in the way in which it is to be cut back? Is there not a need to revise the Plan for Coal, otherwise we may have a power gap by 1965?

I have a later Question to answer about the effect of the nuclear power revision on the Revised Plan for Coal. In fact it will have no effect, because the Revised Plan for Coal operates until 1965, when the change between the old and new nuclear programmes will begin to operate.

In the present days of uncertainty in the coal-mining industry, can the Minister give an assurance that any future plan for coal will not mean a return to competition between the districts and that the districts will not be put upon their own economic ability to pay wages?

I should like to make two things quite clear. There has been speculation in the Press on two main points—first, that the Government intended to dismantle nationalisation and, secondly, that there was some question of a reversion to district wage agreements. I should like to make it clear—because I think this is necessary for the future of the industry—that there is no foundation at all in either of those suggestions.

asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that 587,000 to 626,000 miners will be available in 1965, as envisaged by the Revised Plan for Coal, in view of the fact that the net loss in miners is now running at an average of 1,500 a week, and there are now only 602,000 miners left in the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

The National Coal Board is hopeful of meeting its 1965 manpower requirements. Numbers have been substantially reduced this year because of the stock position. Many of them are men over 65.

The average age of the coal miners is rising very fast, which does not square with the Minister's Answer. Is not the Minister aware that owing to the uncertainty about the future of the mining industry, brought about by his own Government's policy, miners are leaving at an ever-increasing rate and wastage is now running at over 1,500 a week? Is he aware that he cannot possibly maintain the force envisaged by the Revised Plan for Coal in 1965 if this continues?

If there is uncertainty in the industry, it is a little questionable why it arises. In any event, the central control by the National Coal Board has been removed by the Board, and recruiting, as the hon. Member probably knows, is going on quite vigorously in a number of divisions. I am confident that that recruiting will make up any manpower wastage taking place, as indeed is happening in a number of areas in the country, and that the manpower requirements in 1965 will be reached.

asked the Minister of Aviation what subjects were discussed and what were the conclusions reached at the Conference in Rome this month on the subject of civil and military aviation which was attended by Ministers representing the six countries of the European Common Market and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The purpose of the Conference was to discuss arrangements for setting up an international organisation, to be known as Eurocontrol, for controlling aircraft flying at high altitudes over Western Europe. Subject to certain reservations by Italy, a draft agreement was approved in principle.

Did the talks include the urgent need for reciprocal arrangements between Britain and other European countries with a view to encouraging not only trade but also education and international understanding?

The Conference had nothing at all to do with any of those subjects.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on first hearing the phrase "Eurocontrol" sounds as if it had something to do with kidneys? Will he tell us what Eurocontrol is to control? What power has it got? Is it an international body? Has it powers of supranational being? What is it?

It is spelt quite differently.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the purpose of his recent official visit to Sweden at the invitation of the Swedish Government; with which Swedish Ministers he conferred; and what conclusions were reached.

This was a courtesy visit, at the invitation of the Swedish Government. I had talks with the Swedish Prime Minister and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Commerce at which we exchanged views on matters of common interest to our two countries.

May I ask whether the talks referred to in this and the preceding Question encouraged the Minister in the levity which is characteristic of his answers today, which have contained no substance but a kind of pseudo-humour or "Euro-humour"? Did the talks referred to in this Question contain any reference to the urgent need for reciprocity in the commercial and educational fields between the various countries referred to in the Question?

No.

On a point of order. The two Questions which I have asked were constructive Questions designed to elicit constructive answers. The Minister has shown the utmost contempt in the way that he has treated the House. In the circumstances, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent research has been carried out on fitting silencers to aircraft engines while flying; what loss of power would result from such fitment; and whether it is expected that such silencers could shortly be applied to commercial aircraft.

Suppressors that reduce the noise of jet engines in flight without excessive loss of power have been developed and are already fitted to many aircraft, including the Comet 4 series aircraft and to the Boeing 707's.

As it does not seem possible to move London Airport to the Scottish hills, as many of my constituents would like, will my hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to fit silencers to petrol-engined aircraft? Before the war the Puss Moth had a silence box affixed to it? Does my hon. Friend hold out any hope of having such silencers fitted to the larger petrol-engined aircraft?

I think that most aircraft will be fitted with silencers. I have given two examples. They are being fitted to other aircraft also.

asked the Minister of Aviation what measures his Department is taking to improve landing facilities for passengers arriving in air-liners at the long-distance terminal at London Airport North.

asked the Minister of Aviation in view of the delay in landing passengers from air-liners at the London Airport North Terminal, what steps his Department is taking to improve the facilities there.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of the congestion at London Airport, the new programme of works may be expedited.

The exceptional delays in handling incoming passengers at the North Station of London Airport on 20th June arose from the arrival of an abnormal number of large transatlantic air-liners within a short space of time. This was due partly to unavoidable delays in departures from New York, which also has its own problems of traffic congestion. The position was further aggravated by the arrival of unscheduled charter flights.

Fortunately the peak period for the arrival of long distance passengers at the North Station coincides with a comparatively slack period for the arrival of Continental passengers at the Central Station. I have therefore given instructions that when the arrival of delayed or non-scheduled flights appears likely to cause congestion at the North Station, the aircraft concerned will be handled instead at the Central Station. This will, I hope, help to relieve the pressure.

Meanwhile we are pressing ahead with the construction of the new long distance air station, half of which will be ready for occupation next year.

In order that passengers may have the comfort of knowing that better things are around the corner, I have had the model of the new building set up in the waiting room at the North Station.

The Minister is no doubt aware that there is great disappointment amongst the passengers at the long time they had to wait. Can he also provide temporary facilities at the north entrance to London Airport where the long-distance terminal is pending his longterm policy? Can he not make temporary provisions now?

The temporary provision I am making is to divert those aircraft to the Central Station, where there should be sufficient facilities to deal with them at the times when congestion is likely to arise at the North Station.

I welcome this temporary expedient, but does the Minister realise that his "pie in the sky" promise will give no satisfaction to arriving passengers while they wait fuming in London Airport for, perhaps, over half an hour waiting to go through immigration and Customs? Why was it not foreseen that the arrival of the large jet airliners would not coincide with developments at London Airport? Why must we wait for another year?

It takes time to build buildings.

On the first part of the Minister's answer, could he arrange that this might be reciprocal with the Americans at Idlewild so that they might do the same thing? On the second part, does he think that the promise of a model, in view of what happened to the model of Blue Streak, might be rather terrifying?

I think it would be a good thing to show people that something is being done, even though they may have to wait a little for it.

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, to private interests.

Today, we invite the House to discuss the Government's decision, commented on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech and by the Minister of Power himself when we discussed the Colvilles loan some time ago, to denationalise the publicly-owned company Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Ltd., which, as we all know, is the last large section of the steel industry still owned by the public.

Now that we know of this decision and also of the decision to sell S. G. Brown, Ltd., perhaps the first question we should ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether the issue is to be floated on the London or the New York Stock Exchange, or whether we shall have a typical British compromise of 51 per cent. and 49 per cent. all over again.

However, complex the economics of the steel industry may be, this debate should be quite simple to follow. We pose the single question consisting of the one three-letter word "Why?" Is it because Richard Thomas and Baldwins, as a publicly-owned sector of the steel industry, is failing the nation? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to say that it is. As we have no response to that challenge, obviously they accept that Richard Thomas and Baldwins is not failing the nation. The first point, therefore is made.

The 1950s were one of the strangest periods in British political history. We saw at that time at least £2 million spent by the Tories and their industrial allies in propagating the idea that nationalisation had failed. Tory Governments were in charge for nine of those ten years. No Tory Government denationalised or even attempted to denationalise a single industry on the ground that it had failed. If Tory propaganda on the subject were true, I should think that an excellent case would exist for impeaching the Prime Minister for conniving at the retention of 10 per cent. of British industry in a form which had failed.

There was recently issued by the firm of publishers known as Macmillan the report of a Nuffield study. In this interesting book we see highlighted the extent of industrial expenditure on this type of propaganda, most of which, I suppose, is paid for by the Chancellor anyway. We learn that the Conservatives spent nearly £500,000 in 27 months prior to the General Election. Speaking of expenditure by their industrial allies, the report of the Nuffield study goes on to tell us that the amount spent on the anti-nationalisation campaign was enormous by political standards. It was about four times what the Conservative Party was spending on advertising in the same period, and fourteen times the Labour Party's outlay on public relations. It was £400,000 more than the total expenses of all candidates in the General Election.

The total, we are told, was £1,435,000. of which the Iron and Steel Federation spent £287,000 and Stewarts and Lloyds spent £269,000, which means that private steel spent about £556,000. Yet the nation is invited to deplore the intervention of trade unions in politics. When we see this kind of thing developing, we are entitled to wonder whether political democracy can function efficiently in such conditions.

At the time when the Labour Government were introducing Bills to take certain industries into public ownership, we were constantly reminded by the Tories and, indeed, by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), on behalf of the Liberals, of the remark by my noble Friend, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that it was for the nationalisers to prove their case. Against a barrage of propaganda, we did so, at least as well as the spoken word can do it against what was probably the most vulgar and expensive cacophony ever heard in Britain. I do not say that we succeeded. What I do say is that we diligently tried to prove the case for public ownership. Whether we succeeded or not is another matter.

Today, however, we demand that the same principle be applied and that the denationalisers prove their case. It is their initiative which we are discussing here, the initiative of the denationalisers of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and our challenge, which I hope the nation will watch carefully, is that they prove their case for the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins.

In any event, before we discuss the merits or lack of them in the Government's decision, we should query their ability to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins. If they manage it, this will be the first large sector of the industry in which they have succeeded. On 2nd May, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

"how much in the way of securities is still to be disposed of by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency compared with the cost of the original acquisition."

The Economic Secretary replied:

"On 13th July, 1953, the Agency took over securities amounting to £252 million"—

and then he puts in very nicely—

"together with loans and obligations to lend of a further £112 million, making a total of £364 million. The corresponding figure at 30th September, 1959, was £213 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 51.]

The Economic Secretary is a very coy young man. I wonder whether he forgot the sort of petty cash item of £120 million of public money to Colvilles and Richard Thomas and Baldwins, making, on his own showing, £333 million of public money in what they are pleased to call a denationalised industry? We may ask, on this £112 million which he trots out, whether it is not the fact that practically the whole of it was public money in the first place.

I prefer the estimate of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). When we were discussing the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill, he said:

"…we repealed the Steel Act, but we have not denationalised steel. We have increased the State stake in steel from £250 million in 1952 to £360 million today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1504.]

These are the proofs, I take it, of successful denationalisation.

We are, therefore, in the position in which the Government agree that they cannot get the industry financed by private money even in the sector which is reputedly in private hands. After seven years they just cannot get private money into it and, therefore, by their actions, as in the case of Colvilles, they admit that they can get much needed expansion only by pouring public money into the industry.

I should like a straight answer from the Minister. I imagine that some hon. Members opposite will be interested in the reply.

Hear, hear.