asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. Compton Pakenham, a British subject, and chief of "Newsweek's" Tokyo Bureau, has been refused permission to return to Japan on behalf of that newspaper; why the "Daily Herald" correspondent has been warned that if he visits Singapore he may not be allowed to return; how many other British-born journalists have recently received revised instructions from the United States Public Information Office; what have these instructions been; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

As Mr. Pakenham is an employee of an American newspaper, and as it was in that capacity that his re-entry into Japan was refused, His Majesty's Government have not taken the matter up with the authorities concerned and, therefore, have no official information on the subject. The "Daily Herald" correspondent was informed before leaving Japan for Singapore that the then existing regulation whereby correspondents accredited to Far East Command could leave the theatre for a period of 90 days without re-accreditation was under revision, and that consequently when he wished to return he should apply for such re-accreditation. This he did from Singapore on 21st January, and was informed by telegram on 3rd February that clearance had been given. All British-born journalists concerned have been informed of the revised regulations. These regulations provide that correspondents accredited to Far East Command, may, without seeking re-accreditation, leave the theatre (which includes Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa and Guam) on duty for 30 days every six months and for 15 days to China for recreation as often as they like. No action beyond the application for the "Daily Herald" correspondent's clearance, has been taken by His Majesty's Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that 30 days is an impossibly short period for journalists who are trying to find out things in the Far East? Japan is a very good centre from which to work, and in view of the very rosy attitude of the S.C.A.P. organisation, in connection with conditions there, is it not advisable that journalists should be allowed to meet any type of Japanese so that they can find out what is really going on behind the scenes?

Since the hon. Gentleman called attention to this regulation—and I am grateful to him for doing so—I asked for reasons as to why it was necessary. I would point out that all correspondents are familiar with the regulation.

As General MacArthur has written a full statement to Congress about the case of Mr. Pakenham could we have a copy of it placed in the Library?

I do not think there would be any difficulty about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what residences which belonged to British firms or British subjects before the war in Tokyo and Kobe are at present occupied by American Army officers and their families; how many housing units it is estimated will be available for occupation by non-Japanese by the spring; and whether any of these are being allocated to British business men or British firms.

My information is that there are no British residences in Tokyo occupied by American Army officers and their families. In Kobe there are about 31; and in Yokohama 25. I do not know how many housing units will be available for occupation by non-Japanese in the spring. There is an acute shortage of accommodation in Japan. As long as the occupation forces remain at their present strength there is little likelihood of housing being released by the Supreme Commander. However, under new regulations for the entry of business men which have just been issued a limited amount of housing and office space now occupied by Japanese will, I hope, become available for British business men. Business men of all nationalities will in the main be accommodated in the commercial hotels operated by the Japanese Government in Tokyo and other important Japanese cities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there were quite a lot of British go-downs and other British property not allowed to be returned because they were not held by the Japanese; and is he further aware that the whole position becomes more difficult in view of the fact that General MacArthur claims that it is not his fault, and that this matter should be dealt with in Washington? Can the Minister say whether any steps have been taken in Washington to see that British business men get the houses they require?

The Question referred to British residences and it is about those residences that I have replied. We have been in negotiation on the question of making accommodation available with, as I have indicated, some success.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Japanese have been allowed to leave Japan for the United Kingdom since the Allied Forces landed; what have been the purposes of their visits; and how many have applied for permission through the United Kingdom Mission to S.C.A.P.

Six Japanese have been allowed to leave Japan for the United Kingdom since the Allied Forces landed. They were all British-born women returning to live in this country. In all, 14 Japanese have applied, through the United Kingdom Liaison Mission, to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers for permission to leave Japan for the United Kingdom.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the rest of the 14 have not been allowed to come back?

I obviously cannot do so without notice. Two cases with which I am familiar have been refused because the reasons for proceeding to the United Kingdom did not seem to be sufficient.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. are particularly anxious to get a number of special Japanese—people whom they want themselves—and they are not having very great success at the present moment?

I know about that. This question of Japanese leaving for commercial or cultural reasons is being discussed as a whole by the Far Eastern Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now reconsider the decision made which obliges prisoners of war on repatriation to change their accumulated savings into marks at the rate of 15 to the £, since the continuance of the present arrangement, in the absence of currency reforms in Germany, means that the bulk of the men have been working in this country for next to nothing.

No, Sir.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the continuance of the present arrangement is grossly unfair to these men and discourages them from putting their best into their work here; and will not he use his influence to see that they may be granted a little more in British currency now, if the arrangement which I have suggested in the Question cannot be adopted?

I think that the second part of the supplementary question might be more appropriately directed to another Minister. As to the first part, I regret that I cannot concede the point, because this conversion rate must be related to any general conversion scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas conditions in most respects have greatly improved for prisoners of war, there is this one continuing grievance about which they feel a real injustice? Will he not re-examine the whole matter to see if it cannot be put on a more reasonable basis in relation to the cost of living in Germany? Fifteen marks is absolutely trifling.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether 15 marks to the pound is the official rate of exchange?

There is, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, no official rate in the normal sense of that word. It is an agreed rate.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House whether his original monosyllabic reply approves of this course, or whether anything prevents him from taking the course he would like to take? Does he realise that this is really depriving these people of the fruits of their efforts, and that it involves the good faith of His Majesty's Government?

The good faith of His Majesty's Government is not in question. My reply did not indicate whether I favoured it or not. My reply was in relation to fact, and it was bisyllabic and not monosyllabic.

If it is suggested that the original answer was in relation to fact, is it not a fact that there is a great discrepancy between the rate of exchange allowed to these men and the rate allowed to other men; and ought not that discrepancy to be put right to prevent the British Government from making an illegitimate profit out of a false rate of exchange?

I cannot see where the false rate of profit comes in. As I have already explained in a previous reply, there are no sterling balances which they can hold. The comparison made with other rates of exchange is, I think, the comparison with the rate paid to British troops in Germany, which is a different matter. That was a rate fixed by the military powers before the occupation took place.

Can my right hon. Friend say what is the basis of this rate, which appears to bear no relation to reality; and with whom an agreement has been reached? He said that this was an agreement. Can he say with whom this has been agreed?

As the war has been over for nearly three years, will the right hon. Gentleman review this matter, and try to pay a rate nearer to the rate for the job?

This is a diminishing problem, although, I agree, that does not make it any the less severe for the people affected; but I have already given a reason why it would be unsuitable to review it alone. If it in any way prejudiced the general rate that must eventually be agreed upon, that must be undesirable, and for that reason, while I will promise that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter again, I do not like to be dishonest by holding out any great hopes.

In view of the fact that the 15 mark rate is purely arbitrary and provisional within Germany, and bears no relation whatever to the conditions under which these prisoners were paid in this country, will he give serious consideration to adjusting the rate of exchange, so that it will bear some relation to the conditions in which they were paid here?

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the agreement between Russia, U.S.A. and Great Britain on the question of the publication of diplomatic documents captured in Germany.

There is not and never has been any agreement between Russia, the United States and Great Britain for the publication of diplomatic documents captured in Germany.

In view of recent articles in the Russian Press quoting from these captured diplomatic documents, will the Minister put a translation in the Library so that Members can inform themselves as to what they are about?

Quite plainly it is most inappropriate to ask His Majesty's Government to publish a translation of documents which, if I understood my hon. Friend aright, are in Soviet possession.

In view of the fact that a limited number of copies of this publication, as published by the Americans, are available in certain libraries in this country, is it not desirable that there should be an official British publication on the matter?

My right hon. Friend has already explained the fashion in which publication will eventually take place officially in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opening of fire or the taking of any offensive action by British troops in Greece is within the discretion of local commanders or is subject to a directive from His Majesty's Government; and if the latter, what is the relevant part of the directive.

A directive approved by His Majesty's Government has been issued to British troops in Greece. The relevant part of this directive states that British troops will not become involved in fighting unless they are attacked, or unless their security is directly threatened.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries have been made into the disappearance for two months of a diplomatic mail bag consigned to Paris last November.

I am unaware of the disappearance of any Foreign Office bag or any bag for which His Majesty's Government are responsible.

Can the Minister give an assurance that Russia has not got this mail bag?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what categories of British officials attached to missions abroad are held to be covered by diplomatic immunity.

Governments normally establish the categories of officials of foreign diplomatic missions enjoying diplomatic immunity from the local jurisdiction, in accordance with certain general rules of international law and custom.

Since the application of these rules varies as each Government conceives its obligations under them, exact reciprocity is not always possible, but His Majesty's Government consider that it is entitled to expect the following: That the heads of His Majesty's diplomatic missions abroad, the members of their diplomatic staffs, and other officials performing clerical and comparable duties under the direction of His Majesty's Ambassador or Minister shall all, unless they are nationals of the country concerned, enjoy immunity from the local civil jurisdiction and, so far as the first two categories are concerned, from criminal prosecution also; and that officials of the third category shall not be prosecuted on a criminal charge except after consultation with the Head of the Mission in which they are employed.

While I am very much obliged for that full reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is sufficient uniformity of international practice in this matter, or will he agree that there is a case for endeavouring to negotiate an agreed convention through the United Nations Organisation?

There are certainly quite a surprising number of variations in practice, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion that the system might be usefully reviewed under the United Nations machinery.

asked the Minister of Food what quantity of oranges from this season's crop he was offered from Cyprus; and how many were purchased.

I was offered 1,590 tons, which also was the quantity purchased.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that numbers of slaughtermen in Aberdeen have been deprived of a livelihood by the wartime practice of exporting live cattle instead of dead meat; and will he revert to the traditional practice by allowing cattle for export to be slaughtered there.

Some cattle are slaughtered in Aberdeen and the meat sent to England, but some live cattle also are sent to other parts of Great Britain at times when the total number of cattle for slaughter in the country as a whole is low. This is done to provide a reasonable minimum standard of work for slaughtermen who are needed in the industry in other areas. Before the war large numbers of cattle were also sent alive and I see no reason for changing the present practice.

Is the Minister aware that more meat can be carried dead than alive, that cattle lose weight in transit, and for those additional reasons would it not be desirable and economic that the old system should be restored? Will the Minister take steps to do that?

We do not consider that there is a lower proportion of slaughtering in Aberdeen than before the war although the total is lower, but if my hon. and learned Friend will let me have any particular case he has in mind where there has been uneconomic transport of live cattle, I will pay attention to it.

Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of slaughtermen are out of employment, and that they were in continuous employment in Aberdeen in pre-war years?

Will my right hon. Friend also remember that a certain amount of cruelty is almost inevitable in transporting live cattle?

We realise the difficulties, but some transport of live cattle has always taken place and I doubt whether it could be abolished. As regards the other supplementary question, fewer than 10 slaughtermen are unemployed.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is now able to relax restrictions upon the customer's choice of milk retailer.

I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) on the 28th January.

Is it not time that some decision was come to in this matter, since the Committee on milk distribution was appointed as long ago as October, 1946, and issued an interim report in May, 1947. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has received the final report, can he not come to a decision?

The first step is to publish that final report, and that is to be done.

How soon?

What has happened to cause this evidently unexpected delay in a conclusion being arrived at? Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary told me more than a year ago that something was about to be done?

The report of the Committee covers a very much wider field than is suggested in the Question, as it embraces the whole matter of milk distribution. We have been awaiting that report, which makes recommendations in this regard, as hon. Members will see. It would be a pity if we had to make a change before the report is even published.

How soon will it be published?

As soon as it can be printed.

asked the Minister of Food why he gave about £67 a ton for 4,268 tons of carrots during the year ended 31st December, 1947, while the average price for home-grown carrots was about £10 a ton.

The hon. Member is misinformed. This high average import price was due to imports of early carrots by private traders.

Why did the Minister of Food give £60 a ton for foreign carrots when home-grown carrots at £10 per ton were rotting?

The hon. Member evidently did not listen to my reply. Those carrots were not bought by the Ministry of Food.

Were not import licences required?

Certainly, but the price of early carrots imported by private traders bears no relation to the price of main crop carrots.

Were not these carrots imported with permission and by licence?

I have just replied to that question.

asked the Minister of Food why he has sent out a circular asking for swedes to be stored; what price is he offering as a storage fee, and for how long; and in view of the fact that swedes will stand up to frost in the open better than any other vegetable, why has he asked that they should be stored.

As a safeguard against a vegetable and potato shortage in the spring, I arranged for a reserve of swedes to be stored. Most of it will be kept in clamps and only a minor part in merchants' warehouses. The merchants selling these swedes receive a commission payment, covering storage, of 20s. per ton, out of the total wholesale margin provided by the Root Vegetables Order. The period of storage varies with the rate at which the swedes are cleared. It was necessary to store some swedes where they would be readily accessible.

Does not the Minister of Food realise that this order and similar orders make him the laughing stock of farmers, growers and distributors of vegetables?

On the question of who is the laughing stock, I would not like to comment.

asked the Minister of Food what percentage of bananas arriving in this country during 1947 were unfit for consumption.

Some 2 per cent

What check is made on these cargoes by the officers of the Minister's Department?

We make a careful check, but it is impossible to avoid some losses of bananas in shipment. There were such losses before the war.

Can the Minister give the House any idea of what the losses were before the war?

No, Sir, I cannot produce the figures offhand.

asked the Minister of Food why sugar beet growers are refused a special allocation of sugar.

I cannot see any justification for granting an additional allowance of sugar to beet growers.

Is it not a tact that when a recent request for this allocation was made, the Ministry turned it down on the ground that it would be unfair to give a small section of the community preferential treatment in rationed goods? In view of the fact that coal miners are allowed to have a special ration of coal, would it not be fair to allow farm workers who produce sugar beet to have a ration of sugar?

We could not give a particular class of agricultural workers a special ration of the food they produce.

asked the Minister of Food how many medical certificates, R.G. 50, are received in the London area, issued for confinements expected seven months or more from the date of the issue of the certificate.

On the basis of a representative sample the number of expectant mothers in the area of the London Food Division who at 31st December, 1947, had presented a certificate of pregnancy (R.G. 50) more than six months before the expected date of confinement was about 5,500. I have no figures for the seven months' period.

asked the Minister of Food how many ration books, R.B. 7, are returned because confinement has not happened, compared with the number of clothing books containing coupons, that also should be returned.

I am sorry, but this information is not available.

Is the Minister aware that there is a certain amount of perturbation among food executive officers concerning the number of ration books returned, as compared with the number of clothing books returned, because of the ineffectiveness of the certificates?

I can see the difficulty, but to over-tighten the regulations—if I may so phrase it—in regard to expectant mothers would be undesirable.

Has the Minister any ground for doubting the number of certificates which are issued at the seven months or eight months period?

No, Sir, we have no grounds for it.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there is a prospect of a large crop of good quality home-grown lettuces; and if he will take this into account when deciding the question of licences for imported lettuces.

Prospects for home-grown lettuces during the latter part of the winter season seem good. I do not think, however, that any imports of lettuces we may then receive will interfere with the marketing of the home-grown crop.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the position that is likely to arise in May, in view of the fact that in 1946 similar conditions produced an over-great supply, and a considerable loss in food?

Yes, Sir, we will certainly bear that point in mind.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that builders' workmen in certain areas of Ashford, Kent, have been refused an extra cheese ration on the ground that meat-pies are available to them; and whether, in view of the fact that the quality of these meat-pies has now so deteriorated as to render them well-nigh uneatable, he will allow the additional cheese ration to stand in their lieu.

These workers have been refused the special cheese ration on the grounds that it is practicable for their employers to provide canteen or other catering facilities, such as a packed meals service. In the circumstance I regret that I am not prepared to reverse this decision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the alternative catering facilities consist of these meat pies? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to let me see him eat one of these pies, if I bring it to the House?

I would want notice of that question—but I would be delighted to sample the pie.

asked the Minister of Food how much money in the calendar year 1947 was paid to traders appointed as agents for the purpose of purchases of carrots and other vegetables; and whether he will state the amount paid since 1st January, 1948, to the latest available date; and what is the total cost to the taxpayer.

£198,715 in the year 1947, and £34,319 in January, 1948. This remuneration is mainly for potatoes and is no greater than would be earned by the private trade from the wholesale margin, so the public do not pay any more either as taxpayers or consumers.

Does not the Minister realise that interference with the normal trade channels causes loss of food to the consumer and loss of money to the taxpayer?

No, Sir, I see no evidence of it.

asked the Minister of Food what steps are taken to ensure that imported meat is clean and fit for sale on delivery to retail shops.

Meat is inspected both on and after arrival, and every effort is made by the officers of my agents and of the public health authorities to maintain a good standard. If the hon. Member will inform me of any particular case for criticism, I shall be glad to look into it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain towns meat is received with dirt so deeply embedded in it that it is unsaleable, and that there is, therefore, waste? I will, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, send him particulars.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the potato allocation recently to certain towns in the North-West has not been sufficient to meet the weekly ration; and what action he has taken.

Irregular deliveries caused shortages at times in January, but we sent a substantial quantity of potatoes into Lancashire during the second half of that month, since when the position has improved.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware that at Royton nobody has had his full ration for more than a month, that the week before last it was only just over 1 lb. and last week just over 2 lb., the difference being made up by stocks which were in the retailers' hands, but are now almost exhausted?

We will look into this case.

asked the Minister of Food to make a statement on the findings of the Bodinnar Committee.

Yes, Sir. I have now received the final Report of the Bodinnar Committee and am in a position to say what we propose to do about pigs. The orders to be issued will give precise details of the new regulations, but in broad terms they will be as follows:

1. All pig keepers intending to fatten and slaughter a pig for their own consumption will be required to register with the local food office within seven days of acquisition. This will be an indispensable notice of their intention to apply for a licence to slaughter in not less than four months from the date of registration.

2. The slaughter of pigs will only be permitted:

(a) at a Government slaughterhouse, including bacon factories;

(b) at a slaughterhouse authorised for pigs only; or

(c) at a place specially designated for the slaughter of a specific pig or pigs by a particular person named in the permit.

3. It will be an offence to offer pigs (other than pigs sold for breeding) which are estimated to be over 8 score live weight (160 lb.) for sale either privately or by auction except to the Ministry of Food for slaughter.

These Measures will, I believe, serve to check the abuses which have undoubtedly crept into the self-supplier scheme. Registration will come into effect on 1st May next, which is four months before the beginning of the next slaughtering season. The other provisions will be put into effect as soon as practicable. In the meanwhile there will be much preliminary work to be done in the selection of slaughtering points, the more effective supervision of the store markets and in arranging for much more effective enforcement of the regulations. The new orders will not apply to Northern Ireland.

I hope shortly to make a further announcement on other aspects of the Report of the Bodinnar Committee.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for the very satisfactory way in which he has dealt with this matter, may I ask him whether any decision has been reached regarding the suggestion which was made to the Bodinnar Committee to relate the issue of rations for pigs and poultry to the sales of bacon and eggs to the Ministry of Food?

A recommendation was made on that point, but it is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture.

With regard to the point about specified places of slaughter, will it be accepted that a smallholder or cottager can get his own premises licensed for the slaughter of one particular pig?

Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of the third provision, that for a particular pig to be slaughtered by a particular person, a licence will be issued.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the Bodinnar Report or any part of it, so that we may see on what this new order is founded?

No, Sir. We think that would be undesirable, because it goes into the question of the enforcement of these orders against intending offenders.

Can we have part of it?

Will the self-supplier be able to keep more than one pig?

There will be no change in that respect. A self-supplier is allowed to keep two pigs under certain conditions.

Can he kill them both himself?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the new regulations on that point. It is slightly complicated.

How does a domestic pig keeper in outlying districts get permission under the first provision to kill his pig. Does he make application to the food office? If he lives in another part of the country, how does he get it?

Yes, Sir. He will have to make an application to the food office to slaughter a pig at a certain place at a certain time.

Will my right hon. Friend say what is the relation between the existing bacon ration to the normal consumer and the ration which a producer is able to obtain by the slaughter of two pigs a year for his own use?

He will get very much more bacon, but he will give up his bacon ration.

asked the Minister of Food how soon he expects that his review of the question of seasonal allowances of extra food for agricultural workers will be complete.

I am discussing this matter with the Advisory Committee on Rationing of the Trades Union Congress.

Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the Question—how soon will this review be completed?

I intended to convey that the matter of time was not wholly under my control.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether this review includes the position of the self-employed worker, for instance, a smallholder, who happens to live some distance from his work and under existing regulations is debarred from getting the extra food which employees can get?

We would not exclude that category of worker.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the point that the farm worker should himself be able to get these additional rations instead of merely getting them through the farmer?

That is one of the main points for consideration.

asked the Minister of Food approximately what percentage of agricultural workers in Great Britain generally, and in the County of Essex, are able regularly to obtain pies under the rural pie scheme.

I am afraid we do not know the percentages. However, during September and October, 1947, 1,749,500 meals were on average served each week by 4,082 pie centres throughout Great Britain, and of these meals 93,700 were distributed by 263 centres in Essex.

I am afraid I am not good enough at figures, so could my right hon. Friend say whether that answer indicates that the percentage is rather small, and, if so, is he taking steps to increase it?

I could not answer that question readily either, but we are doing everything we can to increase the number of pies distributed and improve the general service of packed meals, as we consider them most important and valuable.

Could the right hon. Gentleman state the difference between a rural pie and a city pie?

Could the right hon. Gentleman break down the figures for the County of Essex if I sent him a letter?

I will certainly try to do so.

asked the Minister of Food what is the cost per gallon of milk of transporting it from Locherbie to Edinburgh and back to Locherbie and of pasteurising it in Edinburgh at the United Dairies plant, respectively.

The cost of transporting milk from Locherbie to Edinburgh is 1.95d. per gallon in churns, and 1.125d. per gallon in road tankers. I have no information about the other costs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of pasteurisation is about 2d., and this means that it is costing 5d. to make milk unpalatable to consumers in Locherbie? Will the Minister ensure that they get a chance of changing from pasteurised milk if they wish to do so?

I cannot agree that it is to make milk unpalatable; it is to make it safe.

Does my right hon. Friend also remember the great improvement to health, and the removal of the risk of infection, which results from pasteurisation?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to ensure that the price of home-grown wheat is made approximate to the price paid for imported wheat, having special regard to the increased turnover in the British acreage which would result, and the corresponding reduction that would take place in external dollar payments for wheat.

No, Sir. I do not think that tying the price of home-grown to that of imported wheat would be in the interests of British agriculture or serve the purposes suggested by the hon. Member

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that the Government pay to the Argentine £34 a ton for wheat as compared with £18 for the English? Surely, there is something wrong there?

Perhaps the hon. Member will be interested to learn that, overall, we pay less for imported wheat than we are paying for our home-grown wheat.