asked the Minister of Food if he will give details of the arrangements by which overseas visitors are allowed to buy tea without ration coupons; and what has been the quantity of these purchases for the most convenient period.

Overseas visitors may, on production of a passport, buy tea without ration coupons from certain authorised suppliers for direct delivery to an overseas address or to ship or aeroplane on departure. Three and a half tons of tea were supplied in this way last year; the tea is imported by traders especially for re-export and is unsubsidised.

As the tea has been imported and is, therefore, actually in this country, is there any possible way by which it can be used to augment the ration so that our own people get the benefit of it?

We have to consider this figure of 3½ tons of tea against the whole quantity of the domestic ration of 180,000 tons of tea. Obviously, the hon. Member can see that we cannot distribute that amount over the large number of consumers without causing some difficulty.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the production of a passport, does he mean a non-British passport? What about an Irish one?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Food the price paid per ton for the New Zealand meat shipment recently diverted from the United States of America to this country.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) on 21st February.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that but for this act of good will on the part of New Zealand in diverting a shipment to this country, it would not have been possible to maintain the 8d. ration?

I would not agree to the whole of that supplementary by any means, but we are grateful to the New Zealand Government for their co-operation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that even with this diverted shipment he is able to maintain the 8d. ration?

I said in the House recently that the present ration was, we believed, the lowest we need have to go to, and I stand my that statement.

Is it not the case that other facts have come to the notice of the Government since then, and that the New Zealand shipment will not be up to the standard expected at that time?

The Question asks the price paid per ton for New Zealand meat.

asked the Minister of Food how much of the French meat, bought by his Department at £177 per ton, has been found unfit for human consumption and delivered to the Eastern By-Products, Limited, glue factory at Waltham, near Canterbury.

None at all, Sir. The Press reports which made the allegation, contained in the hon. Member's Question, were totally inaccurate and were denied the following day. No French meat has been handled by any of our depots in the county of Kent, and the firm in question will confirm my statement if the hon. Member consults them.

As this was not French meat, can the Minister explain why, when the ration is down to 8d., meat is kept in store long enough to go bad and has to be condemned when issued?

Meat has been going bad right down time. There is nothing new about that. The allegation made in the Question was a quite unfounded one; it is really a repetition of a quite unfounded story in daily newspapers, which has not been withdrawn by those newspapers.

asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the fact that the Argentine is prepared to sell meat to Brazil at £76 per ton, he can arrange with the Brazilian Government to import the maximum quantity at that price and resell it at a reasonable profit to this country.

This suggestion is, unfortunately, quite impracticable. If arrangements were made to buy Argentine meat via Brazil at prices less than we are prepared to pay for direct shipments, then Argentina would obviously either stop selling to Brazil or increase prices to the level demanded of this country—as, I should have thought, the hon. and gallant Member would have been able to see for himself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he pays £177 per ton for old bulls which are sent over from France and which are so tough that they have to be minced? Why not try to do a deal with the Argentine somehow?

Does not the fact that the Argentine are willing to sell this meat to Brazil at £76 a ton justify my right hon. Friend in his stand against the exorbitant price which they are demanding from this country?

Does not the answer to this Question, and to the 43 others to the Minister reveal the ghastly failure of Socialist policy and—

A question should not be tendentious; it should ask for information.

I wanted to ask, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed the dishonest attempt of the Minister of Defence, in his broadcast on Saturday, to try to justify that policy.

asked the Minister of Food how much Argentine frozen beef, Continental B grade, surplus to Austrian requirements has been offered, ex-stores Vienna and Antwerp, to his Department; why such offers were refused; how much of this beef is still available for purchase; and at what price.

asked the Minister of Food on what grounds be recently rejected an Austrian offer to sell 2,000 tons of Argentine meat; and how the price asked compared with the price recently paid to the French Government for similar meat.

Three thousand five hundred tons of Argentine beef were offered in Vienna at prices ranging between £134 and £170 a ton free on rail Austrian frontier, and 2,000 tons ex-cold store Antwerp at £150 a ton. I have already indicated to the House why we are not prepared to pay unreasonable prices for Argentine meat, and it would be misleading to compare these offers with our recent purchase of French meat at £170 a ton. This was a spot purchase on an open market, whereas to have accepted the other offers would have jeopardised our trading position with a long-term bulk supplier.

If, as at present, we are getting practically no meat at all, would it not be better to give £135 per ton or more to get this quite good quality meat, which comes from young light-weight steers suitable for this market?

As I have mentioned, a mission is leaving from this country tomorrow to start negotiations. I hope that the Opposition can at least keep their mouths closed for a short time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite he will have to pay unfortunate prices to the Argentine?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the remark which he has just made in answer to a supplementary question is an extremely powerful argument against Government bulk buying?

asked the Minister of Food how many tons of meat he has bought from France during the last 12 months; and what proportion of this quantity was Argentine meat.

Four thousand eight hundred tons of beef, none of which came from Argentina.

asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the resumption of meat negotiations with the Argentine.

asked the Minister of Food whether any further progress has been made in the negotiations with the Argentine on the purchase price of meat; and whether there is any early prospect of an agreement.

As was announced on Saturday, the Argentine Government has agreed to resume discussions on meat purchases and on other outstanding financial and trade questions. The discussions will take place in Buenos Aires and the British Delegation, which is leaving by air tomorrow, will be led by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all sorts of extraneous issues, such as pensions to ex-employees of the Argentine Railways, are coming into these negotiations and may well prejudice the real negotiations on meat, which we all want?

The negotiations do, in fact, cover all these issues. We have very serious matters of great concern, quite outside the meat question, to resolve with this country, and it is as well that we should consider them on a wide basis and secure, as I hope we shall, a complete and final settlement.

How does the Minister explain that the negotiations with the Argentine for the supply of meat are only now taking place, when in the Socialist Party's hand-book, issued for the last election, it was stated emphatically that arrangements had been made with the Argentine for contracts—

That is not a supplementary question, asking for information. It is merely throwing a brick across the Floor of the House.

Is not the fact that these negotiations are bound up with scores of other questions a conclusive argument against bulk buying?

The supply of meat to this country from Argentina was part of a trade agreement, and we have to consider the whole of the trade agreement. We cannot take out sections of it to the disadvantage of the other country and ignore the things which are to our own advantage.

asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the resumption of negotiations for the purchase of meat from Uruguay.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 5th February.

Is it not most important that these negotiations should be resumed—at least 60,000 tons of meat are available in Uruguay—and should have been resumed before to strengthen our hands in any negotiations with the Argentine?

I think that we had better await the outcome of the present negotiations.

asked the Minister of Food (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General revealing that £201,758 was paid to Holland for strawberry pulp in order to cancel the contract for the remaining 3,200 tons of this particular bulk purchase; and if he will make a statement;

(2) how the payment to Holland of £63 a ton for cancelled, because unwanted, fruit pulp compared with the price paid last year.

asked the Minister of Food why he paid £63 per ton on 3,200 tons for strawberry pulp to Holland in order to cancel a contract; and if he will give an estimate of how much more it would have cost to have purchased the pulp and brought it to this country.

To meet the estimated needs of the jam manufacturers during 1949–50 my Department contracted to buy 9,500 tons of strawberry pulp in Holland at £126 a ton free on board. This was before the size of the home crop, and the quantity and quality of the amount pulped, were known, and it so happened that there was an exceptionally good home crop of strawberries from which considerable quantities of pulp were manufactured. Then, to the great surprise of the trade, there was a substantial fall in the demand for strawberry jam.

In these circumstances, it was clear that my Department would not only have to sell most of its pulp below the contract price, but would also have difficulty in finding buyers at any price. Faced with these poor prospects it was judged to be undesirable to incur further freight and other costs, including the cost of long storage in this country, and it was decided to stop further shipments. The Dutch manufacturers agreed to accept a compensatory payment of £63 a ton for about 3,200 tons which had not been shipped. It is estimated that by taking delivery of this pulp my Department would have lost at least an extra £27 per ton.

Is it not a very great deal to pay for something we do not get?

Is not this an example of the folly of bulk purchasing by the Government?

Does not this transaction prove, if proof is necessary, that Government buying is a costly failure? Would the Minister not agree that the best service he could render the nation would be to advise the Prime Minister to wind up his Ministry forthwith?

Does not the Minister realise that the whole country is full of alarm at these sorts of transactions?

I really must reply to some of these supplementaries. I admit that it was not a good buy. [Laughter.] All right. How many business men in this country, and represented in this House, ever effect completely good buys in all their transactions? I myself am amazed, considering the overall extent of the transactions of the Ministry of Food, amounting to £1,700 million a year, at the smallness of the number of times, when we are thinking ahead and estimating possible demands, that we sometimes turn out to be wrong, and find ourselves in a situation of this sort.

Including groundnuts?

asked the Minister of Food what is the price paid by his Department for casualty sheepskins; and what is the average price for which these are subsequently sold.

Between 2s. 3d. and 8s. a skin, according to the size, and time of year, and whether or not the animals have been shorn. It is not possible to give a separate average price for sales, because casualty and other sheepskins are processed together.

Is it not the case that some of these skins have been selling at nearly 35s., whereas the price paid by the Ministry was 8s.? In such cases cannot the Ministry allow a larger price to the producer?

I think that, on the whole, these are quite fair transactions. They must be considered against the total amount of money that we give to the farmers for the production of animals.

asked the Minister of Food how much tinplate was used by the fruit canning and jam making industry last year; and how much he proposes to allocate for these purposes in 1951.

Last year about 16,000 tons were used for fruit and about 8,000 tons for jam. I hope that about the same quantities will be available this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the acreage for fruit and vegetables is increasing at a fairly fast rate this year, and that that allocation will probably be unsatisfactory? Is he in close touch with the trade?

Yes, I am in very close touch with the trade. We are to have a debate on the whole subject tomorrow, and then we can give rather more information, but we are very well aware of the difficulties of this situation, and, indeed, of the extent to which the shortage of tinplate is causing problems to the manufacturers and producers. Perhaps tomorrow's debate may elicit some rather important and revealing facts of the situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless there is a sufficient allocation of tinplate for canning fruit and making jam that will have a serious effect on the growers?

Yes, I am very fully aware of that, but I think that the allocation for the second quarter, which is a very crucial quarter, will be better than we hoped it would be.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in the interests of public health, the use of preservatives will be permitted in cream, the sale of which he has recently authorised.

No, Sir; since I cannot accept the suggestion that the use of preservatives in cream is, in fact, in the interests of public health.

Why not? Why does the right hon. Gentleman allow the use, for instance, of borax as a preservative in margarine and other food products? Why not for cream, too? Why is there this confusion and these variations of policy between the different sections of his Ministry?

Because circumstances vary. I myself would not, any more than the hon. Gentleman would, claim to be an expert in the science of this matter, but one takes advice from the most responsible people, and I am quite satisfied, on the advice that I have been given, that it would be wrong to do as the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the reduced meat ration, he will now arrange for priority eggs to be available to children between the age of six months and five years, instead of between six months and two years as at present.

The ordinary allocation of eggs will be as high as, or higher than, the priority rate for several months ahead. I hope that this will meet the hon. Member's difficulty.

Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that for next winter—if he should still be on the Treasury Bench, though he probably will not —these children will have priority eggs and an increased cheese ration?

Cheese is another matter, and, of course, winter is a long time ahead. We must move with great care. The priority allocation of eggs for children between six months and two years is three per week. We hope that the average allocation for other consumers will reach this level during the week commencing 26th February, and will carry on for a quite considerable number of weeks.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, by stopping the small retail butchers from purchasing imported tripe and allowing only the chain butchers to do so, he has caused much hardship to people living in rural districts; and if he will reconsider this decision.

During the existing meat situation I have arranged for the distribution of imported frozen tripes to be in the hands of Associated Tripedressers Ltd. This is a Government agency—[Laughter.] I am not surprised to find tripe fascinating the Opposition.

We have been watching it for five and a half years.

This firm supplies cooked tripe to small retail and chain butchers alike. In addition, butchers in rural areas can get raw fresh tripes from their local slaughterhouses for processing and distribution to their customers and these, generally speaking, are adequately available. I am satisfied that these arrangements give the fairest possible distribution of the limited quantities of tripe available; but if the hon. Member has in mind any particular local cases of difficulty I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

I am not satisfied. I am pleased to have the invitation of the Minister; but is he aware that I have received representations not only from Bodmin, but from Lostwithiel, St. Columb, Wadebridge, Liskeard and Saltash, that the position is that, previously, the multiple butchers were allowed to take 75 per cent. of home-produced tripe, as opposed to 25 per cent. for the family butchers, and that in neither case did they take any up because of the shortage of supply? Will he reconsider the matter of imported frozen tripe.

That is far more than a supplementary question.

I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman the facts about this matter, and I am sure that, on reflection, he will regret what he has said.

No.

What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the losses he will make by this arrangement?

Is not the distribution of tripe definitely a Government monopoly?

asked the Minister of Food the total number of persons employed by his Department on each of the dates 31st December, 1949, and 31st December, 1950, and the aggregate cost per annum of wages and salaries for such persons on each date; and whether, in view of the urgent need for productive manpower, he will make a statement upon early staff reductions in his Department.

The numbers on these dates were 35,255 and 25,930, and the annual cost £12,500,000 and £9,500,000, respectively; in other words, there was a reduction of 9,300 staff in the year. I am satisfied that the number of staff employed by my Department is as low as possible consistent with the efficient performance of its present duties. In present circumstances further substantial reductions could only be secured by abandoning the Government's policy of distributing basic foods equitably at reasonable prices.

What is this labyrinth of bureaucratic bumbledom? Would not the nation's interest better be served in present stringent conditions for manpower by drastically reducing the number of officials in this unnecessary Department?

I think I have shown to the House that every reasonable step has been taken to reduce the size of the staff; but if the suggestion is seriously made by hon. Members opposite that we should close the Ministry of Food perhaps they will suggest how then we could carry out the undertaking to pay guaranteed prices to the farmers.

asked the Minister of Food what quantity of coarse grains he expects to purchase from the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan this year.

I shall be glad to consider offers of any suitable feeding grain from the Sudan, but I am not aware that any supplies are available at present.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explore this possibility, as I think he might find it to our mutual benefit?

If I can have any assistance from the hon. Gentleman I shall be be very glad to have it, but, so far, we have had no reasonable offer that would give us any conviction at all that we should be likely to get the kind of stuff we want from that part of the world.

asked the Minister of Food the meat content, and the content of other materials, including the skin, at present prescribed by his Department for the manufacture of the recent 65 per cent. minimum meat content pork sausage.

The minimum meat content prescribed for beef sausages is 50 per cent., and for pork 65 per cent. There is no prescribed content for other materials, including the skin.

Can the Minister say why this delectable morsel, vernacularised as a "Webb's special," has completely disappeared from the market? Is it not the fact that the Ministry are withholding supplies of pork, and can we expect the same untimely fate for the Webb milk sausage which has just been announced?

These are rather silly questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are trying to face rather serious difficulties quite sensibly. I myself, in association with the trade, at the beginning of what has come to be called, not at my request, the "Webb sausage," have sought an improvement in the quality of the pork sausage. Now, at the request of the private trade—not of the Government —I have agreed to a supplement to the feeding of the people, and I think that the Opposition should take a little more care about the kind of innuendos which they put about at Question Time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what makes up the other 50 per cent. or the other 35 per cent.?

What useful purpose is served by the Ministry putting out a specification for a sausage which then cannot be bought in the shops?

That is quite wrong—it can be bought in the shops.

Where?

asked the Minister of Food how many leaflets, for the purpose of helping foreign visitors to the Festival of Britain, describing food rationing arrangements and printed in foreign languages, were issued by his Department and subsequently withdrawn; what were the reasons for the withdrawal; the loss sustained by his Department; and what communications on the subject have been received from foreign embassies.

asked the Minister of Food how many leaflets in foreign languages, describing food rationing details for visitors to the Festival of Britain, have been issued; in which languages these leaflets have been withdrawn; and why.

asked the Minister of Food how many leaflets about food rationing, recently printed for his Department in foreign languages, have been withdrawn; and why.

asked the Minister of Food how many leaflets were printed by his Department in foreign languages explaining our rationing system to prospective visitors to the Festival of Britain; and how many have had to be destroyed because of linguistic errors.

About 247,000 copies were printed in French, Dutch and Spanish; 43,000 were sent to food offices; only a small number were distributed to the public. The rest have been withdrawn. A mistake was made in the selection of translators and I should like to express regret for any inconvenience that may have been caused to foreign visitors. The loss amounted to £340. The only communication received from a foreign embassy on the subject came to an official in my Department from an official at the Dutch Embassy, to whom I am grateful for his trouble and helpfulness. I am sorry about this. I admit, quite frankly, that it was a bad error, which could have been made even by a Conservative Minister of Food, and for which, of course, I take full responsibility.

Does the Minister realise that there is at present an acute shortage of paper and board, which there was not under a Conservative Minister, and will he therefore take urgent steps to stop this profligate dissipation of public funds?

When the right hon. Gentleman says that a mistake was made in the choice of translators, does he mean that this work was done by an amateur linguist in his own Department or that it was handed out to an outside agency?

The translator was engaged by my Department and did not turn out to be quite efficient—that is all.

When the Minister admits that he accepts full responsibility for this error, why does he assume that anybody else would have made the same mistake?

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now modify the regulations under which the public is forbidden to allow the bacon ration to accumulate from week to week.

Present arrangements already provide that bacon coupons may be used one week in arrears, so that two weeks' supply can be bought at a time. I cannot, I am afraid, extend this arrangement, because to do so would involve the risk of poorer quality. To maintain quality and freshness, reserves should be kept as low as possible, and yet if a regular ration is to be maintained, a consistent demand is essential.

Is it not reasonable to allow the ration to accumulate until it reaches perceptible dimensions, and would this not average out over a period? Does the Minister not think it worth while to buy in accordance with the needs of the consumers and to arrange accordingly?

It is very difficult to follow hon. Members opposite. They have just been condemning us for meat going bad. Here, we are trying to get some sort of balance between the two considerations. The present bacon ration is far from being imperceptible. [Laughter.] It is, on the whole, a quite adequate and reasonable allowance of bacon. I would not say that it was enough for all needs—I wish we could increase it—but to describe it as "imperceptible" is a gross travesty of the facts.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now raise the minimum fruit content in jam.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) on 12th February.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that a higher fruit content would save sugar and produce a better jam?

If the public want jam with more fruit in it, and are prepared to pay higher prices for it, there is nothing in the Ministry's orders to prevent makers of jam providing that jam; they can go ahead and do it. If there is public demand for it, I hope an enterprising jam maker will go ahead and meet that demand.

Is it not obvious that in everything they do, the present Government are getting in more and more of a jam?

On a point of order. Is my right hon. Friend forced seriously to reply to the continuous gibes from the Opposition?

That is not a point of order.

asked the Minister of Food if he will again consider whether, in the interests of fruit-bottling and jam-making, sweets coupons can be made alternatively available for the average amount of sugar in the sweet ration; and, should this be impossible, if he will explain why.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), on 19th February. Knowing the attractiveness of this idea, I have examined it most carefully. But there are very many complications, and I am satisfied that the amount of work a scheme for exchanging sweets coupons for sugar would involve both for manufacturers and traders, and for my own Department would be out of all proportion to the benefits. Sugar is not the only ingredient in sweets, and I think people over-estimate the amount of sugar they could hope for under an arrangement of this sort.

Is the Minister aware that I am not asking him to increase the total issue of sugar but only to reduce the issue for factory-made jam in order to increase the amount available for homemade jam, which most people prefer, if only because it has more fruit? Ought not the system of State distribution to be sufficiently flexible to make this possible?

I think that on the whole it is as flexible as we can make it. There is a good deal in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but we have to balance the two considerations. There are many people who have no facilities for making their own jam, and they want to buy it in the shops. We have to try to arrive at a distribution between the manufacturers and the home which is fair. On the whole, I think that our present allocation of sugar both for these purposes and for sweets is fair and reasonable.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider it a pity to encourage mothers to rob their children of sweets?

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that people have not the facilities for making jam at home? Surely, if they have a saucepan and a gas ring they can make jam. I suppose it is because there is no gas.

asked the Minister of Food why he is allowing 4s. in the pound rebate in respect of meat for consumption on board ship supplied through shipping butchers.

It has previously been my Department's practice to charge to shipping butchers the wholesale prices paid by general butchers (including the appropriate surcharges and rebates). I am, however, now considering the elimination of surcharges and rebates for shipping butchers.

When the Minister is considering this subject, as he says he is, will he bear in mind that a great many of these shipping butchers work on a cost-plus basis, and that the benefit of any rebate does not go to them, but to the ship owners, who, although they may desire it, do not need it in this particular case?

asked the Minister of Food what quantity of dried milk has been exported for the years 1949 and 1950; and where it has been sent.

Twelve thousand five hundred and forty-seven cwt. in 1949 and 31,702 cwt. in 1950. It has gone to 41 countries within the Commonwealth and to 44 other countries. I am sending the hon. Member a full list.

Would it not have been wiser to retain this milk at home instead of importing from the Colonies milk which we are selling in our own shops?

It has been a very useful export. Thanks to the efforts of our own farmers, we are getting far beyond the target set for two years ahead and have a surplus of milk, and it is a very valuable way of disposing of that surplus to our profit.

Could not this surplus have been better used to give the people of this country more cheese and thereby more protein food to make up for the shortage of meat?

It is open to all private manufacturers of cheese to take advantage of the available milk to turn out cheese. Here is a chance for private enterprise.

asked the Minister of Food at what price groundnut oil was sold in 1950 to manufacturers; what differences existed in rates charted to purveyors of rationed and unrationed goods; and what was the average price at which the oil was bought during the same period.

My Department's selling price to all manufacturers and trade users receiving supplies was £114 a ton. I cannot give an average buying price for groundnut oil, because the Ministry of Food only buys the nuts leaving them to be turned into oil by the various private firms established in the business in this country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he makes a profit or loss on this transaction? In other words, is it a form of subsidy when this oil is ultimately sold?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Food when there is likely to be an increase in the tea ration.

I am afraid that an early increase is unlikely.

Can my right hon. Friend increase the amount for people living alone and married couples without children?

We cannot make arrangements of that kind.

asked the Minister of Food when the liners of the Canadian Pacific Railway Shipping Company commenced to victual in United Kingdom ports.

About mid-December last.

If it was last December, will the Minister take note that there is an advantage to the shipping company at the expense of his Ministry in their purchasing on this side instead of purchasing abroad, as they did formerly?

My hon. Friend has raised a number of questions on this issue which I have asked him to discuss with my Department, and perhaps he will await the outcome of those discussions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the arrangements have been changed?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Food what subsidised foods are purchased by shipping companies for their liners when victualling in United Kingdom ports; whether the foods are bought at the subsidised prices; and to what extent the passengers on board these liners are subject to British rationing regulations.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 19th February.

As I am not aware of that reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact, as I infer in my Question, that the shipping companies buy these subsidised stores and supply them to their passengers? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend do something to stop it?

I have already explained that one of the reasons was to try to limit our dollar expenditure on the other side—it was a matter of balancing the two considerations. In the new circumstances into which we are now emerging as a result of the improvement in our dollar situation, I think that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Can the Minister say whether meat is being bought for these ships in this country?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Food the world price per ton of copra; why the price paid to Fiji is £53 15s. per ton whilst the local buying price is £55 5s.; why we are paying a lower price of £48 10s. to New Guinea; and to what extent prices below the world price are being paid to other colonies.

The world price of copra has recently risen sharply, and is now between £120 and £135 a ton free on board. The prices we are paying to the Colonies and Mandated territories, from which we buy copra under long term agreements, are considerably lower than this, because the annual price variation under those agreements is limited to 10 per cent. This provision was designed to avoid short-term price fluctuations, and, while we are getting the benefit at present, it gives the producer security against a slump in the market during the nine years for which the agreements run.

The prices for Fiji and New Guinea are different, because the yearly periods for which they are negotiated do not coincide but the price will be the same after 1st March, My hon. Friend will recognise that these long-term agreements will be valueless if they do not insulate both parties from these large fluctuations in the world prices.

asked the Minister of Food if he will reconsider the close-down of Barrow-in-Furness and district food office, in view of the great size of the Furness district and the administrative inconvenience of dealing with Preston.

We are not closing this food office, and it will continue to deal with traders and the public. Certain administrative work has been transferred to Preston in order to save staff and money, but the food executive officer there will still be in constant touch with the food control committees in the Furness district, whose help on local problems is most important to us.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the local food officer who is to remain very full powers, because Ulverston and Grange, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his knowledge of the district, are as far away from Preston as if they were in another county?

I know the difficulties. I have looked into this very carefully in view of my knowledge of the geography. But we really have to cut down the costs of our public administration, as I think Members opposite will agree, and this concentration scheme has been carried out, on the whole, successfully. It has involved difficulties of this kind, but I am satisfied that this local settlement is, on balance, fair to both parties.

asked the Minister of Food if he has now considered the letter sent to him by the National Federation of Fish Friers Limited, dated 1st February, 1951, protesting at the high price of cooking oils and fats; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, and a reply has been sent to the Federation. I regret the necessity for the recent increase in the prices of oils and fats to trade users, but this did no more than allow for the extra cost to my Department. The new prices are still well below present world market prices and compare very favourably with those of uncontrolled cooking oils.

asked the Minister of Food why he holds large quantities of Portuguese sardines in stock when none are available in the shops.

Ample stocks of sardines are available for the shops. My Department's stocks come from several countries and they are issued so as to clear our stocks in a rationed and orderly manner.

Will the Minister state what quantities he now holds, what quantities have been released to the shops during the year and whether the releases have been evenly distributed?

That is an entirely different question.

Cannot I have an answer to it?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing importance of the Department, he intends to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence.

I have considered this suggestion in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, but we do not think that such an appointment is necessary.

Is it not necessary at the present time, in view of the importance of the Ministry of Defence, and the fact that there are three Ministers at the Admiralty, for this Ministry to have more than one Minister?

My hon. Friend has mistaken the position of the Ministry of Defence. It is not intended, and never was intended, that this Ministry should have administrative functions. Administrative functions are the responsibility of the Service Ministries. The whole essence of a Defence Ministry is that it should be kept small.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received and considered the report of the Committee, the appointment of which he announced on 1st June, 1949, to examine, with a view to the best use of medical resources and the avoidance of overlapping, the relationship between the health services provided for the general public and the various health services at present provided in industry which make a call on medical manpower.

Yes, Sir. The Committee's Report is being published today as a White Paper. The Committee have found that, in general, doctors and nurses are well employed in the industrial health services without overlapping with the general health services; and they do not think that any developments of the industrial health services likely to take place in the immediate future will prejudice the general position in this respect.

The Report recommends that development of the industrial health services should be encouraged and properly coordinated with the general health services, and it makes recommendations for the establishment of co-ordinating machinery to that end. I should like particularly to invite the attention of employers to paragraphs 72 and 73 of the Report, which refer to the need for close collaboration with other organisations providing health services and for consultation with the appropriate Government Departments.

The Government accept the Report generally, subject to detailed consideration of the co-ordination machinery proposed. Accordingly, although the need for the utmost economy in the use of medical manpower still persists, the suggestion I made on 1st June, 1949, that further development of industrial health services should be postponed for the time being, is to be regarded as no longer operative.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation enabling the Church of England to acquire greater disciplinary authority over its members, particularly when such members actively associate themselves with the propagation of anti-Christian creeds.

No, Sir.

While personally believing in the greatest freedom and independence for the citizens of this country, may I, nevertheless, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that this profession, the greatest of all professions, has practically no code of professional conduct? Is it really right for the Dean of Canterbury to be permitted to go all over the world black-guarding the Government and the Prime Minister and preaching anti-Christianity and Communism?

I think the hon. Member has forgotten that, by the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, powers regarding legislation concerning the Church of England were given to the National Assembly, and that the procedure is for them to produce a Measure and for it to be laid before the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House and then for Motions to be moved in each House. I think it would be a great mistake if the House were to cut in on that organisation, and particularly I think it would be always found dangerous if this House were charged with interfering with religious liberty.

Is the Prime Minister aware that measures of discipline have been introduced for all clergy below the rank of bishop, and that a measure dealing with bishops will shortly be before this House and the House of Peers; but that in all cases up to now this House and the Church Assembly have thought it right to exclude matters of political and doctrinal opinion?

I think my hon. Friend is right in that.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that at this time it would be very dangerous for the Government to take any measures to curtail freedom of expression by ministers of religion, however odious those expressions may be?

Can we take it from what the Prime Minister has said that there have been no representations from the Church that they have insufficient powers to deal with matters concerning their own domestic discipline? Is it not better to leave these matters to the Church of England?

No representations have been made to me.

If the Government thought it necessary to take away the privilege of being a British subject from Dr. Fuchs, why cannot they do the same thing in the case of the Dean of Canterbury, who is just as great a traitor?

The short answer is that Dr. Fuchs was naturalised whereas, as far as I know, the Dean of Canterbury is a British-born subject.

Can the Prime Minister simplify his answer to meet the point of view expressed in the first supplementary question, namely, that there is a lack of a professional code of conduct? Is not that code of conduct to be found in the New Testament?

asked the Lord President of the Council whether the recent stoppages of work on the Festival of Britain buildings will affect the proposed opening on 4th May.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 21st February.

Does the Lord President think that the Festival will open on 4th May?

I have answered that already, too.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will defer the opening of the Festival of Britain from 4th May in view of the continuance of the war in Korea.

I see no adequate reason to defer the opening in view of the continuance of the war in Korea, since the national preparations and those of more than 1,000 local authorities and many voluntary bodies are so well advanced. Nor do I accept the implication that this is an inappropriate time for us to proclaim to the world our achievements, what we aim to achieve in the future and the sort of people we are.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be a very unfortunate and unhappy thing to open the Festival while British blood is being shed in Korea?

We have discussed this, and we have had a Bill before Parliament. A decision has been reached, and it is time that hon. Members on the back benches opposite stopped their attempt to sabotage this great Festival.

Has my right hon. Friend considered that he can completely satisfy the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) and a great many other people as well if only he will bring about the cessation of hostilities in Korea before 4th May?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the large number of children who are sent to Danish schools in South Slesvig; and whether he will give an assurance that the British Government will uphold the Kiel Agreement, in accordance with which parents in South Slesvig have the right of sending their children to Danish schools.

I am aware of the position, but His Majesty's Government are not a party to the Kiel Declaration. The German Federal Chancellor, however, in a recent letter to the Allied High Commission has endorsed on behalf of the German Federal Government the policy embodied in that Declaration.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the unfortunate speech made by the Prime Minister of Schleswig-Holstein, Dr. Bartram, at Lubeck, which has raised serious apprehension among the Danish population in Schleswig-Holstein, that as soon as the British Army of Occupation withdraws this agreement will be abrogated? I submit that His Majesty's Government is a party to this agreement.

I have not seen the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but I would refer him to a previous statement, which was made by the Minister-President in the Schleswig-Holstein Assembly, in which he said that his Government were not contemplating any change of policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of pupils, English staff, and employed Germans at the British school at Plön, Schleswig-Holstein; what is the cost per pupil per annum; and what proportion is counted as occupation costs and charged against the German economy.

The average number of pupils at the King Alfred School, Ploen, during 1950–51 has been 584. There are 39 British teachers and 11 British administrative staff. The total number of Germans employed in all capacities is 301. The sterling cost per pupil per annum is £71 and the Deutschemark cost which is charged to occupation costs is DM. 2,853 per pupil.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all these pupils are British, or whether some of them are German? Does he not think that it is rather a costly business, having 301 Germans for 584 pupils?

All the pupils are citizens of the United Kingdom or of the British Commonwealth, so far as I am aware. It is true that the cost stands high and that the number of staff appears high, also. This is one of the matters which General Kirkman will investigate when he is looking into the matter of occupation costs in Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what limitations have been placed on the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations in Korea, with regard to the crossing of the 38th Parallel by his troops and their possible advance northward.

I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to similar Questions on 21st and 22nd February.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that I am not trying to raise the question of the merits of any particular policy? What I am asking is that the intention of His Majesty's Government and of the United Nations with regard to this matter be made clear now rather than later.

I think our position has been made quite clear in the replies I gave to Questions the other day.

Does my hon. Friend realise that millions of people in this country feel that it is vitally important that we should get this matter straightened out? It is not good enough to get a fobbing-off answer to a Question by reference to another answer given some days ago.

On 21st February I stated:

"For the sake of clarity, I would point out that the present position is this. It has been made clear that where, for local tactical reasons, it may be necessary to make small incursions over the 38th Parallel, that would be considered a military matter, but that any substantial crossing of the Parallel would be a political matter on which consultation would take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1282–3.]

That, I think, clarifies the position sufficiently.

Have the consultations mentioned in that answer taken place? Has there been an agreement?

In our consultations with the United States we have found a large measure of agreement.

If the crossing of the Parallel on a large scale as a matter of policy is a political question, with political consequences, is it quite accurate to say it is a matter for consultation between this country and the United States? Should the matter not be referred back to the General Assembly of the United Nations for a decision to be taken?

I said that consultations would take place with those countries which are contributing to the Forces in Korea.

Does this policy of renewed consultation involve any change or any ceasing of the effect of the existing decision of the United Nations?

Could we know a little more clearly where we are? We were told on 21st February that there were to be consultations with the United States. Have those consultations been complete, have they ended in agreement, and, in consequence, have they been extended to cover agreements with the other Powers whose consent to that policy is necessary?

We have been consulting with the United States about this matter. Such consultations over matters in Korea are continuous, and we are satisfied that on this particular issue we have reached a very large measure of agreement with the United States. It has further been agreed that where there is a possibility of the 38th Parallel being crossed there will be consultation with the other countries concerned.

Since the matter, admittedly, is one of politics and not merely of military tactics or military strategy, why should consultations about this matter of politics be limited to those nations who happen to have made a military contribution? Why should it not be a policy matter to be considered by the United Nations, from which this action drew its original authority?