asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will consider introducing legislation to extend the insurance of self-employed persons to cover unemployment benefit.

No, Sir. It has never been considered practicable to extend insurance against unemployment to self-employed persons.

Will not my right hon. Friend set on foot studies of this matter, which might provide justice for those who are already compelled to contribute to National Insurance and which, secondly, might stimulate private enterprise among small traders and other persons?

I assure my hon. Friend that this question received the most prolonged study when we were considering the Beveridge Report during the years of the war. I regret to say it was the unanimous conclusion that it was impracticable to bring in these persons for unemployment benefit.

Cannot this matter be investigated further? Nothing is impossible to those who have the will.

asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will make retrospective to Budget day the proposed increases in family allowance, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, pensions and National Assistance scales.

No. Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather mean that while the cost of living is continually rising, these people are kept waiting for the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in the Budget? Could not this legislation have taken precedence over the recent National Health Service Bill? Will the Minister do everything in his power to see that the cost of living does not rise any further until these benefits have been granted to these hard-up people?

This legislation has been brought forward at the earliest possible moment, and the dates of its operation are the earliest possible practicable ones. None of my predecessors in the Ministry has ever been able to make the operation of benefits retroactive.

Is the Minister aware that he has already lost the race in his chase after rising prices?

I dare say we shall have a chance of discussing this further this afternoon.

Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection that the increases in assistance scales and rates of benefit do not cover the increased rise in the cost of living—that, for example, the increase of 2s. 6d. in the scale of assistance for children between the ages of 11 and 16 by itself cannot cover the increase in the cost of food due to such things as the cutting of the food subsidies and to transport charges? Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the relevance of these considerations to this question?

We seem to be anticipating the debate that is to come later.

asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) the number of applications received under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme, 1951, from 8th July, 1951, to 31st March, 1952, setting out the number of total incapacity cases, the number of partial incapacity cases, the number of claims disallowed, and the total amount of compensation paid out to these cases, respectively;

(2) the number of deaths during the period from 8th July, 1951, to 31st March, 1952, of men who were in receipt of either full or partial compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme, 1951;

(3) the number of claims under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme, 1951, which were undecided at 31st March, 1952.

There are no separate statistics for the period up to 31st March, 1952, but I will give the hon. Member the latest available information and, since a number of figures are involved, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of National Insurance why a trade union acting on behalf of one of its members has greater facilities for lodging appeals with commissioners than private individuals not so represented; and whether he will amend Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 1144, to give equal facilities to claimants represented by trade unions and those not so represented.

The distinction to which my hon. Friend draws attention is that if the tribunal is unanimous, an appeal to the Commissioner can be made only with the consent of the Tribunal or of the Commissioner, unless it is raised by a trade union or other association which exists to promote the welfare of its members. This distinction, which was approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, was intended to prevent the Commissioner from being overwhelmed with frivolous or groundless appeals, and I am not aware that it is proving unsatisfactory in practice.

Can my right hon. Friend say why a trade union, apparently, is less likely to lodge a frivolous appeal than is a private individual, who is much more affected by it? Does he not realise that this is a form of discrimination against the non-trade unionist, which might have been expected from the previous Government but not from this one?

I can only say that this position has held good for the last 20 years and that, of course, it does not apply only to what my hon. Friend is thinking of as trade unions, but is taken advantage of by bodies such as the British Legion and the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners.

asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that Oldham unemployed cotton workers, who were unemployed throughout Holy Week, are being made to pay for a 3s. 8d. stamp on their cards on the ground that they are not unemployed for a whole week because Good Friday is a holiday; and if he will amend his Regulations to remove this hardship;

(2) whether he is aware that Oldham unemployed cotton workers, who were unemployed throughout Easter week, are being made to pay for a 3s. 8d. stamp on their cards on the ground that they are not unemployed for a whole week because Easter Monday is a holiday; and if he will amend his Regulations to remove this hardship.

My attention has been drawn to this effect of the present Regulations and I am looking into the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very much obliged for that reply, if he is going to look into it with his customary benevolence? I hope that he will do so, because it represents a very serious hardship and one which requires somewhat urgent attention.

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member has a good point here. I am looking into it with all possible despatch. It does arise from Regulations made in 1948 by one of my predecessors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my points are normally good and, had I raised this in 1949 with his predecessor, I am quite certain that immediate action would have been taken?

asked the Minister of National Insurance why Oldham workers who have put 3s. 8d. stamps upon their cards in respect of periods in which they were not wholly unemployed or in periods of voluntary absence for personal reasons, are being told that the 3s. 8d. stamp does not qualify them for National Health or unemployment benefit.

Contributions as a non-employed person do not normally give cover for unemployment and sickness benefit but may do so where there is a good record of contributions as an employed or self-employed person during the same contribution year. If the hon. Member will send me details of any case in which misleading information seems to have been given, I will look into it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case in question is one where 15 stamps were put on consecutively during a period of absence and, apart from that, the normal stamps had been affixed consecutively for more than 20 years without a loss of any week except holiday weeks?

Yes, but in the case to which the hon. Member refers the lady in question had absented herself voluntarily from work for a period of 15 weeks. The effect was not to disentitle her to these benefits but slightly to reduce the amount of benefit to which she was entitled.

It was reduced by 10s. a week; but will the right hon. Gentleman look into this and see why advice is not given at the time, because that would have saved her an incredible hardship?

I have invited the hon. Member to send particulars of any case he has in mind.

This is the case.

asked the Minister of National Insurance his Regulations governing the payment of Family Allowances when a mother returns to the United Kingdom after temporary residence in another part of the Common. wealth.

If parents return from a temporary visit of less than six months duration the allowances continue without interruption: in other cases the allowances start again as soon as one of the parents has been in this country for six months.

asked the Minister of National Insurance his Regulations governing the payment of Family Allowances when a mother leaves the United Kingdom for the purpose of residing temporarily in another part of the Commonwealth and her children remain in this country.

Allowances may, in general, be paid for the first six months of a purely temporary visit to other parts of the Commonwealth.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now make a statement concerning the investigations he promised to carry out regarding the expenditure by the Eastern Electricity Board of more than £110,000 for the adaptation of Whersted House as their headquarters.

The Eastern Electricity Board bought Whersted House for £20,000 in 1948. The building was extended and repairs were necessary owing to damage by death watch beetle and dry rot. The total spent, including purchase, was £103,500. I am informed that the work has been completed within the amount authorised by my predecessor.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the late Government were justified in allowing such a lavish amount to be spent on this nationalised headquarters when, in fact, there was a very considerable shortage of labour and materials needed for housing and other important purposes at the time?

I should not like to make detailed comments on a particular case. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because I think it is more important to get the present and the future right than to investigate the past. I have impressed on the Electricity Authority the need for the strictest economy in regard to offices, showrooms and the like.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give directions to the British Electricity Authority that they should consider the use of light roadside high tension lines with very small transformers to supply isolated houses and cottages and to employ combined construction where the high tension line passes several premises; and if he is aware that this method is extensively used on the Continent and in the United States of America for dealing with the supply of electricity to sparsely populated areas.

A light and economical overhead line with small transformers is already widely used in this country. Also combined construction for high and low voltage lines is adopted wherever it is practicable.

Will the Minister consider extending that, particularly to the Eastern Counties, where we have very widely scattered districts and we need electricity in the countryside very badly indeed?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Electricity Authority could study with profit the Anglo-American Productivity Report on the transmission and generation of electricity, thereby embodying these important American principles which are so sorely lacking in this country?

Is it not true that the British Electricity Authority have already adopted this method in some parts of the country?

Yes, Sir. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) desires further information on this point, I hope that he will put down a Question, but my information is that this is being widely used at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method is not widely used in the particular case to which I drew his attention affecting the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth a little while ago?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Press advertisements inserted by the Midlands Electricity Board in urban areas, already electrified, depict a house fully lit by electricity; how far the committee at his Department has succeeded in regulating sales promotional advertising; and if he will make a statement on the new principles which will guide publicity by the gas and electricity undertakings.

The Committee has proposed new principles for the avoidance of purely promotional advertising. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to these particular advertisements, and I am communicating with the area board.

While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he can tell the House if he has seen this monstrosity which I hold in my hand, put out in an urban and town area around Birmingham, which is fully electrified, exhorting householders to light their homes by electricity? What does the Midland Electricity Board think householders are going to use—Christmas candles? Why should the electricity tariff be inflated by this kind of unnecessary expenditure?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement issued by the National Coal Board on 29th April, 1952, to the effect that stocks can be built up for next winter to a level which should enable the country for the first time for many years to face the winter without the fear of crisis; and whether he will state the target of his Department for coal stocks at the commencement of next coal winter, 1st November, 1952;

(2) whether he is aware that the summer prices plan for household coal stocking is vitiated by the announcement of the National Coal Board on 29th April, 1952, that there will no coal crisis next winter; and if he will now make a statement calling for redoubled energy in summer stocking of domestic coal and stressing the paramount national need to maintain a high rate of coal production and increase exports above the estimated level of 10 million tons in 1952.

The hopes expressed by the National Coal Board of avoiding coal difficulties next winter depend primarily upon getting a high output during the rest of the year. In that event end summer stocks should be at a satisfactory level, apart from the stocks of house coal.

As I said last Monday, and as the Coal Board mentioned, house coal stocks are a special problem because of the shortage of large coal. On present prospects house coal stocks will, I am afraid, be low. The Government therefore consider that householders and other consumers should stock up as much as possible during the summer and that coal production should be increased by every possible means to meet these requirements and those of the export trade.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable publicity in all the national and provincial newspapers was given last Tuesday to a statement of the National Coal Board which read:

" There will be no coal crisis next winter."

Is not a statement of this sort vitiating to the utmost degree the Minister's exhortations—properly based on need, of couse—that householders should go in for stocking coal as much as possible between now and next September?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1913 we produced 287 million tons of coal and exported 94 million tons and that unless we can get back to something like that this country is faced with disaster? Is he aware that the whole reason for this difficulty is the nationalisation of the coat industry?

While I can understand the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I think perhaps it is the fact that the public as well were so surprised by the suggestion that it would be possible to get through the winter without a coal crisis that they overlooked, or did not pay sufficient attention to, the qualifying phrase used by the National Coal Board, that it all depended on a satisfactory level of output.

Since coal stocks are several million tons higher now than in peacetime previously, is it not reasonable to hope that we shall get a high level of stocks? Is it not also vital to keep a high level of production and, above all, to persuade industrialists that they should make a more economical use of the coal they get?

I quite agree but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, our principal difficulty is the shortage of house coal due to the continuing smaller proportion of large coal produced by machine mining.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the East Midlands contribution is subtracted from both years, up to April this year the rest of Great Britain produced something like -a quarter of a million tons less than last year with something like 10,000 more men on the colliery books, while Belgium, France, Westphalia, the Ruhr and Silesia have all shown an advance in production on the previous period?

I would not quite accept the disadvantageous comparison with other countries, but it is a fact that at the moment the East Midlands are leading the increase.

On the question of house coal, will the right hon. Gentleman take the kind of measures which succeeded so well last year, not only for summer stocking but for the diversion of small industrial coal, building larger stocks for the armed forces, where they can be taken, and securing better supplies of manufactured fuels?

Yes, Sir. In fact we are taking steps to supply a certain proportion of the smaller coals for the house coal programme.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now consider taking the necessary steps to implement the remaining recommendations of the Turner Report on the Consequences of Mining Subsidence.

No, Sir, not in present circumstances.

Is the Minister aware that the whole cost of this subsidence is now falling upon the local authorities in the areas concerned? Does he think that reasonable, and if he cannot implement the Report will he at least discuss with the Minister of Housing and Local Government the making of some arrangement for payment from the Exchequer of grants for this purpose?

I appreciate the difficulties of this long-standing problem. My position in this matter is really the same as that of the previous Government, who said that they could not introduce more far-reaching legislation until the economic position had improved.

The previous Government introduced the first step—the first Bill— to implement the first part. Two or three years have now elapsed. The implementation of the rest of the recommendations will not add a penny to the cost, but will spread it over the whole of the country instead of over the local authorities only. Does the Minister not think the time has come for this Government to be as forthcoming as the last one, and to take the next step?

The last Government tied this matter to the question of the economic position, but after they made that statement they were in office for a further year, and the economic situation deteriorated greatly.

Seeing that the Minister has just spoken very highly of the East Midlands, may I tell him that I attended a conference of five East Midlands local authorities a short time ago. and that the East Midlands is the greatest sufferer from this subsidence? Would the Minister not say that now is the time, in view of the fact that local authorities are obliged to raise their rates by 1s., 2s., 3s., and even 4s. in the £, to make this a national question and no longer a local one?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Korean armistice talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the issues which still divide the United Nations representatives and the Communists in the cease-fire talks in Korea.

Agreement has still to be reached on the following questions:

(i) the right of prisoners of war to choose whether or not they wish to be repatriated;

(ii) the repair and construction of military airfields after an armistice;

(iii) the nomination by either side of nations neutral in the Korean conflict to provide inspection teams.

On 28th April, at a closed session of the plenary delegations, the United Nations Command submitted proposals for a general settlement of the outstanding points of difference. These proposals are still under discussion at further closed sessions of the plenary delegations. The House will understand that I cannot say more while the closed sessions are in progress.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there may be some disappointment at his statement in the light of other statements which he has recently made about these talks? Can he tell the House, in respect of this compulsory repatriation of prisoners, what action is being taken to sort out those prisoners who refuse repatriation because they are genuinely afraid of reprisals and other prisoners who refuse repatriation because of better living standards in the south or because of exaggerated propaganda?

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the greatest possible care is being taken in this matter, but I obviously cannot give a detailed reply while this is actually a subject of confidential discussions between the two sides engaged in the armistice discussions.

That is quite understood, but the point I mentioned may be the key point to the successful conclusion of these negotiations. There is nothing secret about it, there is nothing to be negotiated. The point is, what action is being taken by the United Nations, by the kind of measures I suggested, to increase the number of men who are prepared to be repatriated?

What I can assure the House and will assure the House in greater detail later, is that immense care has been taken to ensure that tliis inquiry into who wants to go back and who does not is very fairly, fully and properly carried out. Beyond that, I cannot go.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that these talks have gone on for a long time, that it looks as if they will be unduly prolonged, and would it be useful, in order to remove the disquiet which I believe exists in all quarters in this House and elsewhere, if the right hon. Gentleman made a full statement on the whole position? While I understand the difficulty about the confidential talks, if they are to go on for a long time, the misunderstanding will continue.

So far as I am aware, I do not know of any misunderstanding as to the details, but the position is that at this moment plenary discussions are going on of a confidential nature between the two sides, and clearly neither I nor any other representative of the United Nations' Governments can make a statement while those discussions are proceeding. The moment they are terminated and the moment I can do so, the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that I will make the fullest statement to the House.

Following the question of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask my right hon. Friend in all seriousness when this farce is to be brought to an end. Is it not really a screen behind which Communist forces are being mounted up and added to while ours—those of the United Nations—remain static?

I hope that the House will not express views either one way or the other at this time. There is still an opportunity for an arrangement to be arrived at, and as Foreign Secretary I shall not say anything that may make that less likely.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the protocol it is proposed to add to the North Atlantic Treaty for the purpose of extending the guarantees under that Treaty to members of the European Defence Community, and why, in the light of this proposal, a separate British guarantee to European Defence Community countries was given.

The terms of the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty which will extend the guarantees under that Treaty to members of the European Defence Community are still under discussion between the Governments concerned.

Her Majesty's Government's offer to conclude a separate treaty with the members of the European Defence Community was made in response to a request from the E.D.C. Conference that H.M. Government should enter into a formal treaty relationship with the Community. As I said in my statement to the House on 21st April, the commitments in this treaty involving both sides last as long as the United Kingdom remains a member of N.A.T.O.

Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether a similar request was made to the American Government, and whether, in view of the fact that it appears desirable, from the point of view of the E.D.C. countries, that a direct guarantee should be given by this country, is it not equally important that a similar guarantee should be given by America?

The position, so far as we are concerned, which is all I am answerable for, is, as the hon. Member knows, that the late Government entered into a series of engagements under the Brussels Treaty with a number of these countries. What they have asked for is that we should extend collectively to the E.D.C. the undertakings we had in respect of the Brussels Treaty, in exchange for which we get counter-guarantees which would not otherwise be available.

Will the Foreign Secretary answer the first part of my supplementary question? Was a similar request addressed to the American Government by the E.D.C. countries?

I am not aware that there was one. The request to us was made on the basis of our Brussels Treaty engagements.

Is it fair to ask this country to accept obligations of this kind unless we are assured that we may be fortified, in the event of trouble arising by the United States?

The right hon.Gentleman must be aware that the Brussels Treaty was negotiated by a Government of which he was a Member. It is under that engagement, which was entered into by the late Government, that we are acting.

Since the right hon.Gentleman has challenged me, may I ask him if he is aware that the Brussels Treaty was agreed to before N.A.T.O. was established, and since N.A.T.O. has been established and is expected to bear the obligations associated with that organisation, why should they not do so now?

When the right hon. Gentle. man joined N.A.T.O. he did not cancel the Brussels Treaty, which is still in force.

Is it not a fact that this House has constantly been informed that Western Europe is completely indefensible without American help, and does not this mean that British troops are now committed to the defence of Western Europe, possibly without American help?

The duration of this obligation is the same as the duration of N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the number of joint meetings of the Councils of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community which the British representative has attended, the date of the last such meeting which the British representative attended; and when it is proposed that the next meeting should be held.

No such meetings have been held because the European Defence Community does not yet exist.

Regarding any future meeting that might take place, will the right hon. Gentleman give explicit instructions to any British representative who may attend that under no circumstances what-soever would any British soldier in the future have to take orders from an ex-Nazi official or military official?

I think the hon. Member should put that on the Order Paper. It is a hypothetical question. We are not members of the E.D.C., as he knows.

While it may be a hypothetical question, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is also a practical question. There is a substantial body of public opinion in this matter which views with a great deal of concern the tendency to have a rapprochement with certain elements in German life.

The only people I know who intend to use the Nazis today are the Government of Soviet Russia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities for the distribution of newsletters are accorded in Hungary to Great Britain.

Except for the very limited facilities available to Her Majesty's Legation in Budapest for the distribution of British news, United Kingdom newsletters and similar publications are not permitted to circulate in Hungary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is in this country and in circulation a Hungarian newsletter which is largely political propaganda? Why cannot we be given the same facilities for a similar circulation in Hungary?

I think the production to which my hon. Friend refers is produced by the Hungarian News and Information Service. That is not part of the Hungarian Legation in London. It is a separate organisation under the direction of British subjects, some of whom are of Hungarian origin, and so perhaps my hon. Friend would ask the Home Secretary about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the inter-Departmental Committee on Overseas Information Services will present its report; and whether the report will be published.

The inter-Departmental Committee has started work; but I am unable to say yet when it will present its report. The House will of course be informed of its recommendations.

Would my right hon. Friend tell me if the terms of reference include, in particular, a strategic overall plan for information services, and would he give an assurance that the authorities really do regard information services as a basic part of our defence effort?

I think my hon. Friend can take it that his suggestions will be covered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on recent arrests of trade union leaders in the Sudan.

I am informed that three leaders of the Sudanese Trade Union Federation who had made inflammatory political speeches were recently detained under Section 90 of the Sudan Criminal Code for refusal to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace. Twelve members of the Committee of the Federation were also arrested on 27th April on a charge of attempting to incite workers to take part in an illegal strike.

Is there any truth in the reports that these arrests had something to do with some proposals to affiliate to the W.F.T.U., because if so, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is only four months since a majority of this executive rejected a minority proposal to affiliate?

So far as I know this is nothing whatever to do with it. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, certain allegations by the W.F.T.U. about the measures taken in the Sudan a little while ago were investigated by the International Labour Office in March this year, and they found there had been no infringement at all of trade union rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply Her Majesty's Government is making to the request received from the United States Government that the present negotiations with the Federal Government of Bonn for a new treaty should be completed by the middle of May.

There is general agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the other three Governments directly concerned that the Conventions establishing a new relationship with the German Federal Republic, together with the treaty setting up the European Defence Community, should be signed as soon as the negotiations to draft them can be completed. It is clearly impossible to set an exact term to any negotiations, but good progress has been made and I hope that they will be concluded this month.

In view of the increasing opposition to rushing these negotiations, not only in this country but also in Germany and France, is it not very desirable that we should now co-operate in trying to arrange for the four-Power talks that even the Americans are now suggesting?

There is no question of rushing their conclusion. They have been under negotiation since they were started, long before Her Majesty's present advisers took office, and it is still our intention to do everything in our power to bring them to a successful conclusion, because we think they will contribute to the peace of Europe.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the statement issued last week by the National Executive of the Labour Party on this matter?

That may be an interesting matter for debate, but I think I should like notice of that question.

Will the Foreign Secretary say whether it is proposed to sign this agreement before the text is available to hon. Members of this House, or is it only to be communicated to Members of the German Parliament and not to hon. Members of this House?

Constitutionally, of course, the position is quite clear. The responsibility for any signature is the responsibility of the Government of the day. But as I have told the House many times, and I am glad of the opportunity to repeat it now, all these texts will be submitted in full and in public to the House before there can be any question of ratification by the Government.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the statement of the National Executive of the Labour Party referred to reveals that the Labour Party is showing a more progressive and enlightened attitude to the new foreign policy, and does he not think it would be useful if he tried to keep up with the National Executive of the Labour Party?

If I am to understand that the result of this pronouncement is a move nearer to the views of the hon. Gentleman, I must say I would regard that with some apprehension.

asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to curtail the unauthorised sales of eggs off the ration.

The hon. Member is fully seized of the arrangements in force for ensuring that egg producers carry out their statutory obligations. If he knows of any case in which illegal disposal of eggs seems to be taking place and will let me have particulars, I will have investigations made.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but does he realise that there are fairly widespread allegations in the newspapers that there is a fairly extensive black market, which is being given as the cause for us not being able to have a flush of eggs this year? Would he give the House an assurance that it be not so?

The hon. Member will realise that producers with a flock of less than 25 birds are free to sell their eggs as they will, and that accounts perhaps for some one-fifth of the production. At the same time, it is not denied that there is reason to believe there is some leakage-of some size in this field.

asked the Minister of Food what further discussions he has had with representatives of the meat importers; how far the procurement of meat from the Argentine was discussed; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. and gallant Friend met the Meat Importers' Joint Committee for the second time on 29th April. It was agreed that the difficulties to be overcome before the importation of meat could be returned to private hands should be examined further by representatives of the Committee and my Department. The discussion was concerned with importation generally and not with trade with any particular country. I should add that before any decision is taken to change the present system a full opportunity will be given to all interests to express their views.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps are taken, in the interests of road safety, especially in rural areas, to ensure that drivers of American military vehicles are acquainted with the British traffic code.

I understand that arrangements made by the United States authorities in Great Britain provide for instruction in the Highway Code to be given to United States Service drivers. It is the policy of these authorities to employ qualified British civilian drivers so far as is practicable.

Is the hon. Gentleman in touch, or is his Department in touch, with the American authorities on this matter, since there have been quite a few accidents in narrow country lanes in the neighbourhood of these U.S. bases?

Yes, Sir. There are classes of instruction given to United States personnel when they are acting as drivers. As I have informed the hon. Gentleman, the majority are British civilians.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will institute unilateral waiting in various streets in the neighbourhood of High Road, Wembley, in accordance with proposals made by the Wembley Borough Council.

Proposals by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for an experiment in unilateral waiting in certain selected streets in London are now under consideration. The proposals to which my hon. Friend refers are supplementary but will, no doubt, be the subject of a further recommendation by the Committee, after a decision on their original recommendations has been reached.

Can my hon. Friend say how long it will be before a decision on these recommendations will be reached?

I hope not too long, but there have been certain very weighty objections lodged, notably as regards the loading and unloading of vehicles outside business premises.

asked the Minister of Transport the approximate number of towns in which unilateral waiting is in operation; and the names of a few of the largest.

Unilateral waiting is in operation in about 250 towns in England and Wales. Six of the largest are Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Bristol.

Since, presumably, unilateral waiting has been successful in those cities, could not the experience gained be used in London without waiting for very extensive experiments?

Yes, Sir. This has provided valuable evidence.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give instructions that lighting-up time shall be one hour earlier than it is at present.

There is no power to alter the requirements of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, in this respect.

asked the Minister of Transport how much it will cost the Transport Commission to make concessions to London travellers similar to those made to provincial travellers.

Outside the London area, all the proposed fare increases have been suspended for the time being. The loss of revenue involved is at the rate of £2.1 million a year. It has not yet been decided what modifications should be made in the increases proposed in the provinces or in operation in London, and the cost to the Commission cannot, therefore, be exactly estimated in either case. The total cost to them is, however, expected to be of the order of £2½ million a year.

In view of that reply, are we to deduce that the saving to the London workers will be of the order of £400,000, and, if that is so, does it mean that, after all this hullabaloo is over, the London workers will still be expected to pay an additional £12,600,000, and all that the Government's campaign will mean will be a saving of £400,000?

Unfortunately, I am not able to exercise any control over such deductions as the hon. Gentleman may make.

Is it not a fact that the figures which my hon. Friend gave are quite correct, that increases have already taken place in London to the order of £12 million, and that the London travelling public are paying that increase at the present time? What relief are they to receive?

The hon. Gentleman appears to be making an endeavour to re-open a matter upon which the House pronounced decisively a week ago in the Division Lobbies.

Cannot the Minister answer the simple question put forward by my hon. Friend? It is of great importance. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that he has no control over the deductions of my hon. Friend, because my hon. Friend quoted figures and he asked whether they are correct or not. Will the Minister say whether they are correct or not?

I do not think it is the right time to re-open last week's debate.

Will the Minister realise that, although he may consider the matter closed, the London workers do not, and that they have been led to believe, as a result of Government action, that they are to save money on their fares? Are we now to understand that the saving will amount to £400,000, and the increased bill to £12,600,000?

If the hon. Gentleman is unable to tell us whether it is a fact that £12 million more is being paid by the London travelling public, will his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reply?

Answer.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

—To ask the Minister of Transport when London season ticket holders and shift workers will be placed on the same fare basis as similar travellers in the provinces.

On a point of Order. I put this Question down to the Prime Minister. It was roughly in the same terms as a previous Question which I had put down on 21st April to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport said that the Question would be answered by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said it would be answered by the Home Secretary in a debate which subsequently took place. The Question was not answered by the Home Secretary. I am now referred to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for some guidance to enable me to follow the procedure adopted in this case?

The Question seems to have had a somewhat adventurous history, but it is the practice of this House to put down misdirected questions to the proper Minister.

The answer is that proposals to give effect to the Government's intentions in regard to the fare increases are being worked out, and every effort will be made to introduce any changes in London and the rest of the country as soon as possible.

This is really not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of my constituents are paying as much as 12s. a week more as a result of these increases? While we are told that every effort will be made by the Government, may we be told when there will be some result of those efforts?

I am pained to hear from the Socialist benches the suggestion that the efforts of the British Transport Commission are not good enough. This body is working most diligently on the problem at this moment.

May we have an assurance in specific terms that fare concessions are going to be made to the London travelling public? So far, all these promises have been couched in the most vague and nebulous terms, and it is quite possible for the Government even now to wriggle out of any undertaking they think they have given on the subject.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have intervened in the provinces but have not intervened in the London area, where the monopoly is complete and where the effect on the transport users is felt most severely? Will he also bear in mind that it is now a week since we passed a Resolution in this House urging the Government to intervene?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is anticipating a Question which stands on the Order Paper in his name and comes later.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that it was the case that the Government, on the initiative of the Prime Minister—and I shall be quite happy if the Prime Minister will answer the Question, since he has taken over the duties of the Minister of Transport—did say that they had imposed a standstill on the provincial fares and would take steps to see that equal justice was done to London? This was about 10 days or more since the announcement was made. Surely, the hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister can state what the Government are now going to do about London? The Prime Minister is willing to get up.

The right hon. Gentleman addressed his Question to me, in the first place. If he can put up with an answer from so humble a figure, may I inform him that the British Transport Commission is examining the question urgently? No one knows London better than the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows that this is a matter of considerable complexity.

I do not know that, and that was why I was so surprised that the Government barged in in such a thoughtless way. The Government did say that they were doing something about London, and the Prime Minister said this himself. I now ask the Prime Minister to inform the House how it is that there is this delay, and when the Government are going to say what and how they are going to do about the matter?

I have certainly no intention of answering that question in detail this afternoon. I will content myself with the general observation that it is so much easier to do harm than it is to put it right.

We really cannot have this debate all over again.

asked the Minister of Transport if he can now state the terms of reference to the Central Transport Consultative Committee in regard to sub-standard and concessionary fares.

No, Sir. The first step is to obtain proposals for modification of certain fare increases and these are now being worked out by the British Transport Commission with a view to consultation with my Department. This follows the course indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in debate on 28th April.

Was it not announced in that statement that this matter was going to be referred to the Central Transport Consultative Committee some three weeks ago? When these terms of reference are worked out, will the Minister see that reference to the position in London is included so that the London travelling public may be treated with regard to fares on the same basis as the rest of the country?

I would again, with respect, ask the hon. Gentleman to permit the Government to conduct their business in an orderly fashion. An obvious prerequisite for reference to the Consultative Committee must be to provide them with the wherewithal for consultation.

While all these discussions and consultations are taking place, would it not be reasonable to expect the return of the London area to the position which applied before the recent increases were imposed so that London travellers may be put on a level with provincial travellers?

As I have already said on two previous occasions this afternoon, this is a matter to which the British Transport Commission is now bending its energies

Is this one of the minor matters on which the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power will be consulted?

Does not my hon. Friend agree that though there may be some delay in making these modifications, had right hon. Gentlemen opposite been on these benches there would have been no possibility at all of any concessions for London?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the directions he will give under Section 4 of the Transport Act, 1947, in order to bring London transport fares into line with fares outside the London area.

Proposals are now being worked out by the British Transport Commission and, until my hon. Friend has received those proposals, he cannot make any statement as to directions.

Can my hon. Friend say how long the British Transport Commission are going to be in this respect, because it is now some time since the Government intervened on behalf of the provinces and where the hardship is most severely felt is in the London area.

I fully appreciate that. The Commission are working with all dispatch, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that his vigorous representations on this subject have not gone unheeded.

Can the Minister say whether the Government have made any suggestion whatever to the British Transport Commission as to the basis on which the Commission can work out the proposals to which he has referred?

I replied to a Question on this subject last week—I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was present—when I said that consultations had taken place.

asked the Minister of Transport when the White Paper on transport policy will be available.

I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement on this subject by my right hon. Friend the leader of the House last Thursday.

Will the Minister state whether there was full consultation with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission and the chairmen of the various executives concerned before decisions regarding transport policy were reached?

The Question refers to the timing of the publication, not to consultation.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question? Can he say Whether, before determining the date of the publication of this White Paper, there was full consultation with the people concerned?

If the hon. Gentleman requires that information, may I respectfully suggest that he might have put down the question?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know the answer, but not wish to give it—and if so why? —or does he not know the answer?

Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman's refusal to give an answer that there has been no consultation?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that, in any changes made in the organisation of rail transport, Scotland will be safeguarded from being overburdened with uneconomic services and that railroads will be recognised as national arteries vital to the maintenance of population in all parts of the country.

The right hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of transport.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the separation of Scotland from other transport is a very serious economic step to take and that when the previous Government, under Sir Eric Geddes, proposed this scheme the Chambers of Commerce, the trade unions, the municipalities, and every organised body in Scotland protested? Is the Minister going to consult the trade unions, the Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Council for Industry before taking any drastic steps of this kind?

I have no doubt that there will be many bodies desiring consultation when the White Paper appears. Meanwhile, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the factors he has enunciated will be fully considered when deciding policy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the pledges made by the Scottish Tories which it would be very wise to forget?

In view of the very definite promise made by the Prime Minister regarding Scotland receiving special treatment, will the Minister consider bringing in a special Bill dealing with Scotland and referring it for special consideration to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Is it not clear, as a result of these questions and answers on transport, that the Parliamentary Secretary is a better stonewaller than his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a goalkeeper, for he has succeeded only in scoring through his own goal?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impact on textile and other industries in this country arising from the cancellation of contracts and the diminished flow of orders from members of the British Commonwealth, he will arrange for an economic and financial Empire Conference to coincide if possible with the visit of Mr. Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, announced for the end of May.

I would invite the attention of my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on 24th March, of which I am sending him a copy. It would not be possible to arrange a conference representative of members of the Commonwealth to coincide with the visit of Mr. Menzies at the end of this month.

Is not the principle just enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman that prevention is better than cure, and would it not be wise at the present juncture, in view of the additional circumstances since the January meeting, to summon at least some representatives, if not all, to this country?

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a strong feeling in all parts of the House that there should be such an economic and financial conference summoned, and will he please reconsider the matter in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

It will not be possible to have such a conference at the time of Mr. Menzies' visit. The general question as to when such a conference should be held is another matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman propose to the other Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth that there should be such a conference, say, in June or July if it is not possible to have it in May?

I do not consider that such a decision need be taken at this moment.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether, in view of the situation created by present pressure of business in the House of Commons which causes congestion and inordinate delay in serving meals to Members, he will now consider the closing of the Harcourt Room and the consequent reallocation of staff, and thereby restore the necessary space and staff for the adequate service of meals to Members.

The occasions on which congestion is caused in the Dining Rooms are few. There is a loss of 20-25 seats in the guest rooms due to the change over from the Harcourt to the Strangers Annexe, which at times may cause some inconvenience to Members bringing guests to dine. On the other hand, more spacious lounge accommodation is provided.At most meal times more people could be accommodated. I will, however, submit the observations of my hon. friend to the members of the Kitchen Committee at their next meeting.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether, when he is putting the matter to the Kitchen Committee, he will bear in mind that there is a big volume of opinion among Members that there is much more congestion and delay in serving meals during a rush hour, which is frequent in the present Parliamentary scheme of things, and that the present arrangement is particularly hard on the staff who find difficulty in serving meals under present conditions?

Congestion in the guest rooms is usually caused by Members bringing guests without prior booking and by not arriving on time.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether part of the cause of the congestion is due to a reduction in the staff of the kitchen, thus causing great inconvenience to Members and hardship on the staff?

As a general principle, the waiting staff have 10 to 12 covers to look after. This principle has operated for years and no change has been made or is contemplated, but, at times, sickness affects this arrangement. For example, during the week before last, 16 people sent in medical certificates to say that they were sick. That must affect the service.

asked the Minister of Supply by how much he proposes that exports of machinery in 1952 should exceed comparable exports in 1951.

We have urged manufacturers to increase the export of machinery as much as possible and we are discussing targets with each of the industries concerned; but I do not think there would be any advantage in publishing forecasts.

Whilst I welcome the likelihood of increasing exports of machinery, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, parallel with this policy, there is to be a considerable reduction in importation of machinery to this country? is he aware of the damaging effect that will have on the re-equipment of British industry and also on productivity? Will he not reconsider this policy-as it appears that he is at the moment taking a short-term profit for a long-term loss?

The hon. Member knows well the country's economic position. It is the policy of the Government to increase exports of machinery in so far as that is compatible with meeting the most essential needs of our domestic industry.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make on the Mediterranean naval command.

I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Will the Prime Minister agree that continued American interest in the Mediterranean is vital to us here and it is also vital to our security that the Mediterranean should have an adequate allocation of Atlantic Mediterranean force? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen in the "Daily Express" today, under the banner headline "U.S. Admiral rejected. Britain: We must rule Med" the statement:

"Admiral William Fechteler, … will be told at a Defence Ministry round-table conference in Whitehall today that the British Government cannot agree to the appointment of U.S. Admiral Robert B. Carney as Mediterranean Supreme Commander "?

Is that statement true and, if it is true, is that likely to maintain American interest in the Mediterranean?

I think the House will agree that that somewhat lengthy supplementary is fully covered by my original answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to give the House an assurance that his view remains unchanged from 19th April last year when he told us that on high military and national grounds he would prefer an American commander in the Mediterranean?

My views—[HoN MEMBERS: "Have changed."] —are a harmonious process which keeps them in relation to the current movement of events.