asked the Postmaster-General whether telephone subscribers who have to share lines are given any choice of partner.

I regret that it is not generally practicable to offer any choice of partner to telephone subscribers who have to share lines, as this would mean disregarding the order of applicants on the waiting list.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, bearing in mind that for either personal, political, or other reasons the sharing of a telephone—for instance, by the local secretaries of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party—would have unfortunate results?

Can the Minister tell the House whether, where a party line has been agreed upon and disharmony ensues, the dissatisfied subscriber is expelled or called upon to resign?

Is there any power to compel a subscriber to share his line with another applicant?

Yes, if he is a new subscriber.

asked the Secretary of State for Air on what basis are officers' married quarters allocated in the R.A.F.

Married quarters in the R.A.F., for both officers and airmen, are allocated under a points scheme which takes account of the size of the family, the amount of Air Force service, the length of married life and of separation during overseas tours. I am sending full details of the scheme to the hon. and gallant Member.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that under this scheme the General Duties Officer is at a complete disadvantage? It is unlikely that he will get married quarters unless he reaches the rank of GroupCaptain—if he ever does so.

No, Sir. I do not think it is correct to say that the General Duties Officer as such is under a handicap. The fundamental difficulty is the shortage of married quarters.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what percentage of married airmen are accommodated in married quarters of the R.A.F.; and what allowances are paid to those not accommodated in such quarters.

Twenty per cent. of married airmen are accommodated in Service married quarters, for which they pay rent. All married airmen, whether accommodated in married quarters or not, draw rates of marriage allowance which vary from 35s. a week to 45s. a week according to rank, and no additional allowance is paid to men who are not accommodated in married quarters.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that men who are not in married quarters are at a complete disadvantage financially? Would he get his colleagues together and try to obtain some adjustment to see that there is fairness?

The best solution to this problem is the provision of an adequate number of married quarters and this is what my Department are seeking to do. We have given this matter the highest priority.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the areas surrounding those camps where there are not sufficient married quarters airmen are being charged exorbitant rents? Can nothing be done to stop this practice?

That problem is common to the civilian population in similar circumstances. The Government have sought to deal with it by the establishment of rent tribunals, to which those who object to the extortionate rent charged can apply.

In view of the statement of the Minister about additional married quarters being the satisfactory solution, is there to be an expanded programme of married quarters for the Forces in the near future?

No, Sir, I cannot say that there is to be an expanded programme. What I said in my Estimates speech was that by the end of this year, as far as my Department are concerned, we hope to have attained 5o per cent. of the number of married quarters that are required.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the inadequate compensation offered to owners in connection with the use of their land for the purpose of Bolt Head Airfield in South Devon; that his Ministry's offer in respect of the claims of Mrs. Smale, Mr. Soper and Mr. Squire, amounting in all to approximately £25,000, is only £4,870, and that this sum takes no adequate account of the fact that those concerned have had little or no use of the land since 1946 and that much restoration will have to be done before it is again fit for agricultural purposes; and whether he will take steps to review this case.

The Air Ministry's liability for compensation in this case is limited, by Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, to the freehold value of the land at the date of requisition. In accordance with Proviso (ii) to that Section, my Department has made an offer of £4,700 which is considered to be the freehold value of the land at the time of requisitioning. I am informed that in addition nearly £3,000 has been expended by the Ministry of Agriculture towards restoring the land. It is, of course, open to the owners to claim further payments from the Ministry of Agriculture under Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.

Is the Minister aware that I have inspected this aerodrome in great detail and that it is largely a sea of concrete and a museum of ex-Service huts? Is he further aware that it is quite impossible for the owners, with this miserable compensation, to return the land to any form of food production? As it is an Air Ministry responsibility, will not the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can do something about this exceptional case?

I am anxious to help, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the question of restoration is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and not mine.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make about the derequisitioning of a farm in the Gravesend area, of which he has been given particulars.

Instructions have now been given for this land to be derequisitioned, except for the areas on which there are buildings constructed for Service purposes.

Will that come through in the next week or so and become effective?

I should not like to commit myself, but I hope it will be very quickly.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how soon he expects to be able to introduce legislation extending to air-crews and other employees of private airlines protection against being stranded overseas, through their employers' fault or misfortune, similar to that afforded to merchant seamen.

At present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member to his Question on 22nd April last.

Can my hon. Friend say whether this matter is being considered, since this would not be a highly controversial Measure and might be got through quite quickly?

Yes, Sir, it is now under active consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give consideration to the formation of an over-riding technical organisation available jointly for consultation between his Ministry, the Airways Corporations, the Ministry of Supply and the constructors in order to simplify the procedure of ordering aircraft, stating the long-term aircraft requirements and to act as a body of informed opinion and experienced technical experts, capable of being consulted in all matters affecting the future development and being made responsible for the ordering of civil aircraft.

These matters form part of the general question of ordering procedure, which, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply on 26th February, is now being looked into by the business and administrative advisors whom the Government have called into consultation.

Will consideration be given, if and when some committee is set up to consider this question of ordering aircraft, to include people with adequate technical and commercial experience to enable it really to fulfil its function? Will my hon. Friend see that the rather inadequate organisation in the Corporations will be superseded when this new organisation comes into effect?

That consideration will be given.

Is not the easiest method of simplification to let the Airline Corporation order direct?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the committee of business men will have their report out?

I could not give a date, but I know that the paper is well on the way.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether a decision has now been reached on the role of the flying boat in the long-term programme for civil aviation.

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what decision has now been reached on the location of the No. I British flying-boat terminus.

Investigation of alternative sites is still proceeding, but the engineering survey work is unlikely to be completed for some months.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any consideration is being given to the possibility of having a base on the West of Scotland?

It is being considered, but, to be perfectly frank, our aim is to get a base as near as possible to those places to which people most want to travel; that is, to London and the Southern parts of England.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why it has been decided to proceed with the building of a flying boat base when it has not yet been decided to use flying boats?

My anwer to the original Question was that investigations into the best site for a base are still proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consult with the other signatories of the Treaty of Brussels, with a view to the issue of an invitation to Italy, in accordance with Article IX thereof, to become a party to the Treaty.

No, Sir. A new Italian Government has only just been formed and its policy has not yet been declared. It would be premature to take such action at this stage before there is any indication that the Italian Government and people desire their country to accede to the Treaty.

While I cannot press my hon. Friend at this moment in view of what he has said, will he bear in mind his own words of 22nd January that

"We shall have to consider the question of associating other historic members of European civilisation, including the new Italy?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 397.]

All my words bear very heavily on me at all times.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that houses Nos. 18–30, Bahnhofstrasse, Hamburg Rahlstedt, have stood empty since October, 1947; and whether he will give instructions for these houses to be de-requisitioned and returned to their rightful owners as soon as possible.

Of the six requisitioned houses to which my hon. Friend refers one has stood empty since October, three since November, one since December, and one since January, 1948. Owing to certain re-grouping of military and civilian personnel which is now in progress, no decision as to de-requisitioning can be given just at present, but I am asking for a further report on this question.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that that is the kind of answer which the Control Commission have been giving to me on this sort of housing problem for the last two years, and that they have never come to a decision? Will he urge them to take up the matter at once as it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction?

Obviously, my hon. Friend did not hear the last words of the answer, that I am asking for a further report immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain the need for the requisitioning of houses now occupied by Germans in KielHoltenau for the benefit of British soldiers and their families; whether he will consider using the military barracks at Holtenau for that purpose; and whether he appreciates the resentment caused by additional requisitioning so long after the end of hostilities.

The proposal for requisitioning these houses has been dropped.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the development of the British scientific instrument industry in this country is seriously prejudiced by the decision to remove all control from the German scientific instrument industry; and whether, in view of the vital importance to this country of developing a large-scale instrument industry, he will arrange to set up an inter-Departmental committee at the earliest opportunity to consider policy in this matter.

The hon. Member is misinformed. Executive authority for this and other industries was transferred to German administration in January, 1947; but the establishment of the level of the industry, its demilitarisation and the control of research remain Military Government responsibilities. I cannot agree that the British scientific instrument industry has been harmed by this decision. Our policy aims at striking a balance between eliminating Germany's war potential and making the German economy self-supporting. It is not and will not be directed towards eliminating German competition with British industry. With regard to the second part of the Question, an inter-Departmental committee has already considered this question, and will examine any fresh aspects that arise.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of refuting any suggestion of British industry being unwilling or unable to enter into competition with German industry?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Yugoslav refugees have been detained at Esterwegen Prisoner of War Camp in Germany; and in how many cases has forcible repatriation been decided upon

Twenty-one Yugoslays are at present under detention at Esterwegen Prisoner of War Camp in Germany. Their cases are now under consideration, and no final decisions to repatriate have yet been taken.

Am I to understand from that that the others will be released and that there is no question of any forcible repatriation at all yet? Has anybody been forcibly repatriated?

I should like notice of that.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that he will make sure what has happened to those Yugoslavs who have been repatriated in recent months before he takes the final decision in these cases which he has now told us has not yet been taken?

There is an Adjournment Debate tonight, and I would prefer that all these questions should be put then, when all the points can be answered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the hardship being caused to people who lost their personal effects and property during the Japanese occupation; and when compensation is likely to be paid.

Payment of compensation in respect of losses in Far Eastern foreign territories will depend on the terms of the eventual peace settlement with Japan, and no reliable forecast can yet be made of when this will be concluded, nor what its precise terms will be. Although His Majesty's Government cannot themselves undertake to compensate British subjects who have suffered losses of this kind, ex gratia grants have been payable since 1945 to persons returning from captivity in the Far East who, prior to their captivity, were resident in foreign territory, and who intend to set up a home in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have taken in international refugees up to date and in what numbers; how many refugees have been repatriated; how many refugees are still displaced; and of these how many refuse to be repatriated for fear of being liquidated; what funds are required by the I.R.O. in the immediate future; and what countries, formerly belligerent and neutral, respectively, are being asked to take in refugees or contribute funds to the I.R.O.

As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer :

Except for the United Kingdom, where approximately 150,000 Polish and other refugees had already been accepted since the end of hostilities, there was little large-scale resettlement before the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organisation began its operations on the 1st July, 1947, and complete figures for other countries are not available. In the first eight months of the Preparatory Commission's operations up to 29th February, 1948, 125,374 refugees were resettled of whom 40,455 came to the United Kingdom, 17,001 to Belgium, 14,409 to France, 12,203 to the United States, 11,641 to Canada, 5,187 to Argentina and 5,186 to Palestine. Over seven million displaced persons have been repatriated by U.N.R. R.A., the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organisation and the military authorities from the Western zones of Germany and Austria since the end of the war, and if the numbers who made their own way home or who were repatriated from other areas are included, the total may be as high as ten million.

There are believed to be approximately one million refugees coming within the mandate of the International Refugee Organisation, nearly two-thirds of whom are maintained in assembly centres. Although repatriation is still continuing, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of refugees are unwilling to return home. Although it can be assumed that just over 75 per cent. of the authorised budget of the Preparatory Commission for 1948–49 will be subscribed, this is likely to prove insufficient to enable the Organisation to carry out resettlement to the maximum possible extent, although lack of funds is by no means the only obstacle in the way of an early solution to the refugee problem.

The General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of 17th November, 1947, appealed to all member-Governments to co-operate with the Preparatory Commission and to take a fair share of the non-repatriable refugees. His Majesty's representatives abroad have been instructed to take every opportunity to urge other countries to follow our example by joining the International Refugee Organisation and admitting refugees.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contributions have been made by governments to the International Refugee Organisation up to date; and what governments have failed to co-operate or contribute.

As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether this country has met its full obligations to the I.R.O. up to date? Will he also consider circulating a list of countries which still owe money to the I.R.O.?

I cannot say off-hand whether the whole of our contribution has been paid. I think it has, but I will make sure. I will take into consideration the second part of the Question.

Following is the answer :

The following countries have ratified the Constitution of the International Refugee Organisation and are making contributions in proportions laid down by the General Assembly of the United Nations:

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, United States of America.

The operational budget for 1948–49 is for some 150 million dollars and the total likely to be subscribed by the States named is about 120 million dollars or 75 per cent. of the whole. The shortfall corresponds to the proportion of United Nations members who have not ratified the Constitution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now publish the plan drawn up by the European Advisory Committee in the autumn of 1944 which was confirmed at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945.

Command Paper No. 6648 of 5th June, 1945, contains the information required by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the reply of the Belgian Government to his request that the benefit of Belgian legislation relative to indemnification for war damage to property should be extended to British subjects owning property in Belgium.

The Belgian Government agreed in principle some time ago to extend to British subjects the benefits of Belgian legislation providing for compensation for war damage, and British subjects have been invited to submit their claims. There has been some slight difficulty in preparing an agreed text of the formal agreement, under which both Governments intend to undertake to compensate each other's nationals in respect of war damage. These difficulties have now, however, been almost entirely resolved and I expect the formal agreement to be concluded at a very early date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British officers are at present serving with the Arab Legion; and what steps he is taking to secure their withdrawal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British officers are serving with the Arab Legion and with the Transjordan Force; and whether it is proposed to withdraw them.

The Transjordan Frontier Force, which was a unit of the Imperial Forces, was disbanded several months ago. According to the latest information received there are 37 British officers serving with the Arab Legion at the moment. Three of these were seconded from the service of the Government of Palestine. With the end of the Mandate these officers have opted to terminate their connection with the Colonial Service. Thirteen of the total are civilians on contract with the Transjordan Government. The remainder are on secondment from the British Forces. There are no British Officers in Jerusalem.

The British Army officers who are seconded to the Transjordan Forces are provided under the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty by which the British Government bind themselves to provide on request any British Service personnel whose services are required to ensure the efficiency of the Transjordan Army. This obligation would only cease if its fulfilment became inconsistent with our obligations to the United Nations. In this connection I am still waiting to learn the Arab response to the cease fire resolution.

Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether these British officers have been involved in any fighting in Palestine since 15th May; and in the second place, is it consistent with the policy of neutrality towards the struggle in Palestine that British officers should be serving on one side.

I understand one officer—I will check this up—was involved in certain fighting in Jerusalem. For the remainder they have not been involved in any fighting.

Could the right hon. Gentleman amplify a little that statement about no British officers in Jerusalem? Does he mean that there have been no British officers on Active Service engaged in any operations against the Jews in the Jerusalem area?

Not in the old city. I understand that two persons were involved in the new part, but they have been withdrawn. So far as the rest are concerned they have not been involved in fighting at all.

Does my right hon. Friend think it is fitting that a force paid for with British money, and wearing uniforms and carrying equipment provided by us should be engaged in shelling the Holy Places in Jerusalem?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that could he say whether he is aware of the extent of American support given to the Jews?

"Pay your money and take your choice." As I said yesterday, I am trying to pursue a policy of ending hostilities, and I do not intend to be drawn into a controversy on this matter at this stage. The British Government will do what they conceive to be right and report to this House. At the same time I repeat what I said yesterday, that one of the difficulties in Jerusalem was the breaking of the truce—

What has that to do with British officers fighting with the Arabs? It is a red herring.

If I am out of Order you, Mr. Speaker, will tell me to sit down. I do not know that your powers have been transferred to this side of the House. The trouble about the fighting in Jerusalem arose owing to the truce being broken, and it was broken by a section of the Jewish Forces. I very much regret that. I think it would have been preferable if Jerusalem had been kept out of it

rose —

On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Treaty with Transjordan lays it down that no warlike action shall be taken without consultation, is not the Foreign Secretary responsible for what is taking place at the present time?

That is not a point of Order.

Further to that point of Order. Is not the action already taken purely defensive?

I should like to have an answer to the point of Order I raised.

The hon. Gentleman wants an answer to his point of Order. It was a matter entirely of Debate and not a point of Order for me. I think we had better get on.

On a point of Order. I ask you whether it is permissible for a Minister to say to this House that be is standing for neutrality when, as a matter of fact, he is responsible for the present policy in Palestine?

I said that was not a point of Order, and I say again we will now get on with the business.

On a point of Order. I was on my feet putting a question to the Foreign Secretary.

The hon. Gentleman may have been on his feet, but I had not called him.

On a point of Order. I was interrupted when I was about to put a supplementary question to the Foreign Secretary.

I think I had called the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and, therefore, I will allow that one question.

I want to ask, arising from the answer given by the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), whether any British officers are employed in directing the artillery which is bombarding Jerusalem?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many vacancies there are at the present time for agricultural officers in the Colonial Service.

The number of outstanding vacancies for Agricultural Officers proper which Colonial Governments have asked us to fill is at present 85.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Colonial agricultural service is attracting a due proportion of university students from this country, and, if not, will he review the terms of service?

We have filled 50 vacancies already, which compares very favourably with the pre-war position, and I am satisfied that, as at present devised, it is satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made inquiries into the allegations of over-taxation and high-handed methods of the Income Tax officials in Seychelles, to which his attention has been drawn, with particular reference to the cases of Mr. F. W. Parsons and Mr. Sydney Delorie; and with what results.

My right hon. Friend is at present engaged in considering the recently enacted Income Tax legislation of Seychelles and certain allegations which have been made in regard to the collection of Income Tax, and he would prefer not to make a statement at this juncture. He is, however, sending my hon. Friend information which the Governor has furnished about the two cases to which he refers.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the administration of this Colony is quite efficient and that attention is paid to what is coming to be regarded as a lost colony?

I do not agree that that is a proper comment to make on Seychelles. There have been difficulties in the collection of Income Tax but that is not confined to Seychelles. We are looking into the whole position arising out of the recent cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what substantial donations have been given to assist the work of the Makerere College in Uganda during the current year; and what steps have been taken to acknowledge and encourage such donations.

Since the beginning of the year Dr. J. T. Williamson, of Tanganyika, has given £50,000 towards the cost of new buildings at Makerere College and the Government of Kenya has made a direct gift of £40,000 to endow a Chair of Veterinary Science at the college. The college council has gratefully acknowledged these donations and arranged considerable publicity for them. My right hon. Friend welcomes this opportunity of recording his gratitude for this generous assistance to the college, which is destined to be the University of East Africa and I personally have already thanked Dr. Williamson for his gift.

Very substantial grants have been and are being made to the college by His Majesty's Government, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and by the East African Governments, but there is great need for further assistance and I hope that Dr. Williamson's fine example will encourage other donations from private sources.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what subsidies for the food of the people of Malta have been paid or promised by Britain since the end of the war; and what further commitments Britain has made in this connection.

Contributions by His Majesty's Government in respect of the subsidisation of essential foodstuffs and commodities were, in the financial year 1946–47, £900,000, and in 1947–48, £450,000. As a result of discussions which recently took place in this country with a delegation representing the Malta Government, His Majesty's Government have undertaken to make, subject to Parliamentary approval, a further maximum contribution of £300,000 for the year 1948–49.

Cannot the Government of Malta do something to meet this need, otherwise than relying upon the overburdened British taxpayer?

We are doing a good deal. The contribution has gone down from £900,000 to £450,000, and now the maximum final contribution is £300,000, which we may not be called upon to pay.

In addition to food, what is being done to secure adequate fresh water supplies in Malta? Is there not a very real danger of the water running out and of people not having enough water?

We are well aware of that situation, but it is not a matter which arises out of the Question.

Is not £300,000 much less than the Malta Government asked for? In view of the economic difficulties suffered by Malta because of her sacrifices in the war, will the Minister reconsider her application with a view to giving her a larger sum?

This sum was agreed upon as our final Malta contribution. His Majesty's Government have made a very substantial grant to Malta under the rehabilitation scheme.

Is not the Minister aware that Malta deserves every possible assistance that this country can give to her, owing to her contribution to our cause during the war?

She is getting it.

Is it not impossible to maintain at the same time complete self-government for Malta and a system under which she is subsidised from this country, however much one may be inclined to agree with it?

I quite agree.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the representations of the St. Lucia Seamen's and Waterfront Workers' Trade Union, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Maldon; and what steps he has taken to safeguard the employment of members of this union in publicly-owned cable ships; and to protect them against undercutting of wages.

The representations related to the wages and conditions of service of the crew recruited in St. Lucia for the cable ship "Electra" belonging to Cable and Wireless Ltd. I understand that agreement has now been reached between the union and the company, and no action on the part of my right hon. Friend seems to be required.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the wages now to be paid are not less than those which had been originally agreed?

I cannot give that assurance because I am not fully aware what wages have been agreed to. The answer came by cable and did not include that figure. As both sides have agreed to the figure, I think we may take it that it is satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what response has been made by the Government of Bermuda to his proposal that trade union law should be amended following on the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act in this country; and whether he is aware that the Joint Committee of the Bermuda Legislative Council and House of Assembly has, in its report, rejected all proposals to amend the Bermuda Act of 1946.

I am aware of the Joint Committee's recommendation in regard to the Bermuda Trade Union and Trade Disputes Act, 1946. I understand that this recommendation has been adopted by the Legislature and my right hon. Friend is awaiting the Governor's report.

Are we to take it, then, that the recommendation of the Secretary of State which he indicated in a reply to me on 2nd April, 1947, has been completely ignored?

I will not say that it has been ignored, but it certainly does not seem to have been followed. I would like to point out, however, that both Houses of the Legislature suggested that the recommendation and the comments should be forwarded to the new Legislature after the General Election in June. The new Legislature may be more favourably disposed to the views of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the causes of the present labour unrest in British Guiana; and what action is being taken.

I have no reason to suppose that there is general labour unrest in British Guiana. The employees of the Transport and Harbours Department struck without notice on 17th April, demanding the removal of the general manager of the department. The strike was called off on the appointment of a commission of inquiry, whose report is now awaited. In the same month a small strike of sugar workers took place, called by the Guiana Industrial Workers' Union. This strike is not supported by the Trades Union Council. Negotiations for the improvement of wages and conditions of service in other industries have so far been satisfactorily conducted between employers and employees.

Is the Minister aware that since this Question was tabled strikes have become more widespread? Cannot something be done to get the sugar planters to recognise the unions of the majority of the workers?

I am not aware of that fact. The answer I have given contains the latest information I have.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now inquired into the position as regards mineral royalties in Nigeria; and when action can be expected on his findings.

I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the inquiry by a mining engineer regarding the mineral potentialities in a certain area of Northern Nigeria. This inquiry has now been completed. Its object was to enable negotiations to be begun between representatives of the Nigerian Government and representatives of the United Africa Company regarding the reversion to Government of the share of mineral royalties and mining rights in this area which the company held as successors to the old Royal Niger Company. These negotiations are beginning but complex technical problems are involved and they will inevitably take time to complete.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether following the termination of His Majesty's Government Palestinian Mandate, it has been found possible to arrange with U.N.O. or any other appropriate authority for the financing of the studies of Palestine Government scholars now studying in this country under official grants until the termination of their various educational courses.

It has been hoped to arrange for this liability to be accepted by successor authorities and to that end the United Nations Palestine Commission was approached, but felt unable to accept responsibility for any arrangements extending beyond 1st October, 1948. Nevertheless, scholarships will continue to be paid from Palestine funds held by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to those students whose courses are due to be completed by the end of the academic year 1948–49. All other scholarships will have to be terminated at the end of September next, unless other arrangements can be made in the meantime.

Is the Minister satisfied that that is entirely fair to the first-year students, whether Jewish or Arab, of whom there are considerable numbers in this country and who find themselves left high and dry without funds at the end of their first, vital year of study, and realise that the money which has already been spent has been entirely wasted? Will not the Minister explore to the utmost the possibility of those students who are here being enabled to complete their studies?

I hope it will be possible for them to do so, but the matter rests very largely with whatever successor Government is set up in Palestine. Otherwise, the British taxpayer will have to share the burden for these students, or to undertake the whole of it, for several years ahead. Some fairness is due to the British taxpayer.

Is not this undoubted hardship one of the inevitable results of a policy which consisted in withdrawing all authority on one day without taking any steps whatever to provide any successor authority at all?

Is not the number of students involved relatively small, and does the present position not give a feeling of breach of faith? Cannot the Minister press his colleagues, and especially the Treasury, to try to put this matter right?

I do not think I can go any further than I have already gone.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that Great Britain is paying 3s. 2d. per lb. for U.S. tobacco, as compared with Is. 3½d. per lb. in the years before the war, he will endeavour to obtain from the U.S.A. a more adequate price for Malayan rubber, since the average of the present price which is being paid is less than the price for 1938 and the need for a contribution towards the dollar deficit is urgent.

His Majesty's Government are well aware of the importance of rubber as a dollar earner but, as was said in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) on 3rd March, the rubber market is free and His Majesty's Government do not control the price in any way.

Is not the Minister aware that there must be a policy for tit-for-tat? Is he not further aware that if this country had secured the price of rubber at two and a half times as much as prewar, there would have been a contribution towards our dollar deficit of £50 million in the first six months of 1947? Is not rubber the greatest dollar earner that we have?

I quite agree, but we cannot have a free market and at the same time control the prices. We have a free market, which I thought was what the hon. Gentleman wanted.

Will the Minister, for the benefit of the House and of myself, give us the relative prices prewar and today?

I can give the House the price current last Friday. It was 13½d. per lb. in London, that is, 22 3/5 cents. The price was 23·95 cents in New York. Before the war, prices varied. Speaking from memory, I think that at one time rubber went down to as low a price of 2½d. per lb.

In view of the fact that the rubber study group has just met in Washington, has the hon. Gentleman made use of that fact to make it clear to the United States that an economy where we pay 2½ dollars for wheat and they pay about 23 cents for rubber must have a deleterious effect on the whole E.R.P. set-up?

I have here the note which the rubber study group issued in New York and it says that, after considering all the points raised to it, and many more, the group reached the conclusion that the time had not arrived for any consideration or examination of a commodity agreement.

Is it possible for us to obtain more tobacco from Imperial sources at a cheaper price than from America?

Why not smoke rubber?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many United Kingdom staff are now employed in Gibraltar Dockyard; what was the average prewar figure; if he is aware that a number of these men have been underemployed during the past year; and what steps are being taken to make the most economic use of them and to enable as many as possible to return to the United Kingdom.

The numbers of civilian United Kingdom staff employed in Gibraltar Dockyard in April, 1938, were industrial staff 77 and non-industrial staff 59. At present, industrial staff number 208 and non-industrial staff 86. There is no evidence to suggest that any of this staff have been or are underemployed. Reductions have been taking place throughout the past few months and more are expected.

When my hon. Friend says that there is no evidence, has he in fact made inquiries to see whether that evidence could be obtained?

A representative of the Admiralty went out to Gibraltar in February last and came back with the report which I have mentioned.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on British strategic commitments in the Middle East, in the light of the withdrawal of British troops from Palestine.

The withdrawal of British troops from Palestine reduces our local commitments but does not affect our strategic interest in the security and stability of the Middle East.

asked the Minister of Food whether it is possible to increase the supplies of ingredients for making ice cream to traders, having regard to the fact that there are now available throughout the world adequate supplies of sugar.

The supply of sugar in the United Kingdom is determined not so much by its availability overseas as by the difficulty of paying for it. At present there is not sufficient to justify an increased allocation to ice cream manufacturers.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a world surplus of sugar? In view of the fact that we have substantial amounts in this country, why have we to reduce the sweet ration and cut down ice cream? Why do the Government freeze everything up?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in Question No. 40 he said the need for a contribution towards the dollar deficit is urgent, and now he is asking for dollars for ice cream.

I am not asking for anything of the kind. It really is just too naughty of the hon. Lady.

When allocating the supplies available for ice cream, what allowance does the Minister make for shifts in population since the basic year? Is she aware that it is much easier to get ice cream in London than in the rural areas? Will she look into the question?

When an application for an ice cream licence is made, we always take that into consideration.

asked the Minister of Food what plans have been considered to increase the output of sugar from the British sugar beet industry and increasing the volume of imports from Dominion sources, of cane sugar.

As regards home supplies, the area under sugar beet this year will be rather more than 400,000 acres, the estimated yield from which is the maximum the sugar beet factories can handle. In the case of overseas supplies, the Ministry has arranged to purchase the whole of the exportable surplus from all the sugar-growing Commonwealth countries.

In the light of that statement, is it necessary for us to import sugar from the United States through E.R.P.?

We have not imported any dollar commodities from the United States since August. The details of E.R.P. have still to be considered.

Has the hon. Lady taken any steps to get sugar as soon as possible from the Netherlands East Indies?

We are prepared to take sugar from wherever we can get it, if it is offered to us.

Will the hon. Lady bear this question in mind when the matter is being considered under E.R.P.?

asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an undertaking not to import fish from the U.S.A. under E.R.P. or any other arrangement.

I can give no undertaking at this stage as to the kinds and quantity of foodstuffs to be imported into the United Kingdom under E.R.P.

In view of the reports which we have had that fish is to be among the commodities to be sent to this country, does not the hon. Lady agree that there is plenty of fish in British waters without our having it canned from America?

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the American Brown Book, there is nothing definite about fish being included. All it gives is some illustrations of the things that might be sent to this country.

Why cannot the hon. Lady give a reply to satisfy the House that we will do our utmost to get full supplies of British fish without getting any canned fish whatsoever from America?

If the hon. Member asks his wife, he will find that she will be very pleased to get canned fish.

If the hon. Lady says that she cannot refuse salmon from the United States, will she promise not to refuse caviare from Russia?

On the other hand, will the hon. Lady do her best to resist the temptation to buy dressed crab in tins from Russia, which she has been doing?

I always do my best.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there is no such thing as too much fish in British waters; that we are considering a Bill to deal with over-fishing in the North Sea; and that we want as much fish as we can get.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the plutocrats of Stepney—the dockworkers and the factory workers—will be only too glad to have the caviare received in this country?

asked the Minister of Food whether he will amend the existing regulations so as to ensure that no bona, fide agricultural worker who cannot feed in a canteen is deprived of extra rations merely because he is employed by a local authority and not therefore insured as an agricultural worker.

A worker in agriculture, no matter by whom he is employed, will be allowed the special cheese ration provided he can produce an unemployment insurance card bearing a stamp marked "Agriculture." I regret that I am unable to modify this requirement.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the great feeling of injustice which exists among certain agricultural workers employed by local authorities and doing exactly the same work under exactly the same conditions as other agricultural workers? Purely because of a technicality which they cannot understand, they cannot get the extra ration.

I must remind the hon. Member that many of those workers are employed in grounds attached to institutions or public gardens and have the facilities of a canteen.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the importance of attracting more workers into heavy industries and of enabling these workers to produce more, he is considering any changes in the rationing scheme to benefit those who do the hardest physical toil.

The nutritional needs of heavy workers are already covered by an extra bread ration, the additional allowances of rationed food in their canteens, and other facilities which are available. In the present supply position I am satisfied that these arrangements are the best that can be made.

Has my hon. Friend read the report of Mr. Young, a member of the Coal Board, about incentives in the coal industry and the question of rations, and also some of the speeches made yesterday at the Conference of the National Union of Agricultural Workers? Will she not give further consideration to this question of increased rations for heavy and outdoor workers?

It would be wrong to allow our policy to be dictated by expediency rather than by nutritional needs. If we included all those industries which my hon. Friend would like, if we regarded food as an incentive, it would mean that certain people doing light work in those industries would have a larger ration than people doing heavier work outside.

Is the Minister aware that the men who are doing the heaviest work, namely, agricultural workers, do not get extra rations, except bread, cheese and tea, and are unable to use a canteen at all?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the agricultural worker does get supplementary rations. He gets 12 ounces of cheese, and extra rations during certain seasonal operations.

Do the Ministry experts on nutrition advise that the existing rations, with the allowances, have or have not any prejudicial effect upon output in the heavy industries? Are they sufficient or not?

Yes, Sir, in our opinion they are sufficient.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is now able to give consideration to an increase in the food ration to those engaged in heavy agricultural work.

My hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to consider any increase in the rations allowed to agricultural workers, at the present time.

Does the hon. Lady imply by her answer that the heavy agricultural worker is not comparable with the miner or that the only way to obtain adequate feeding is by owning a farm, or by working on one?

The answer is that we try to distribute equitably and if we gave the agricultural worker more, the other heavy workers would justifiably claim more.

Is the hon. Lady aware that it would help if she granted more licences for fish and chip shops in agricultural areas?

As we have not the fat, we cannot grant more licences.