asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what directions as to policy in regard to the standardisation and co-ordination of electricity tariffs throughout the United Kingdom he will give with a view to promoting efficiency and economy of distribution and use of electricity for industrial and domestic purposes, in accordance with the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945.

None at present.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to take any action in the matter, in view of the widely varying conditions, particularly conditions of contract, that exist among the 13 boards in various parts of the country?

Following the Electricity Act, my predecessor approved the general principles of the proposals with regard to standardisation put forward by B.E.A. only last year.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement as to the directions he will give to the electricity authorities that no current should be supplied free of charge.

I am not proposing to issue such directions.

The London Electricity Board apparently made an arrangement to give a free supply of current to the Ministry of Works for floodlighting. Does the Minister consider it right that the cost should be met by domestic consumers? Is that not bad for the economy of publicly-owned services?

We ought to remember that before the war all the electricity supply companies banded together to make a similar offer for floodlighting. I think it was in 1935. In this case the proposal is to illuminate in this way a small number of public buildings: the Houses of Parliament, Somerset House, Nelson's Column, and so on. It would be rather a pity, simply because the industry is nationalised, if the Minister restrained the Board in what I believe is a helpful gesture on their part.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no objection at all to the floodlighting, which is very desirable? It is entirely a matter of whether he thinks it wrong in principle that a publicly-owned concern should make a free gift of current either to a Government Department or to anybody else.

I certainly do not think it should make free gifts as a general rule, but I do not think there is any case for intervening on this occasion.

When electricity was under private enterprise did not the consumers pay as they do now, and did not the consumers in London benefit from floodlighting?

In view of the unsatisfactory position in regard to electricity charges, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the coal production figure for four calendar months ended 30th April, 1952, compared with the same period of 1951; and the figures of coal stocks, respectively, at 30th April, 1952, and 30th April, 1951.

The figures are 75.3 and 74.6 million tons, and 13.3 and 9.8 million tons respectively.

In view of the fact that coal production in this four months' period is almost exactly the same as it was in the previous year and that we are committed to two million tons extra for exports this year, and that B.E.A. requires 2,500,000 tons extra, can my right hon. Friend say where the additional 4,500,000 tons of coal are to be found?

I think my hon. Friend will see that actual coal production is up by about 700,000 tons in the period under review. That is only part of the year. Also, he will see that the stock figures are so much higher. We are that much further on, by 3,500,000 tons, towards the building up of stocks by the end of the coal summer.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of the coal supplied to domestic consumers in Birmingham is opencast; and what is the proportion in the country as a whole.

Fifteen per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively.

Does not the Minister think that this is an entirely unfair allocation? In addition, are not wagons now available—I understand they were not available before—for a wider distribution of opencast coal to every part of the country? Will the Minister consider giving an increased allocation of this coal in areas where there is local opencast-working?

This proportion between opencast and deep-mined coal in Birmingham was made by my predecessor last summer in anticipation of the difficulties in facing the winter, and for the reason —which, I am bound to say, was a good one—that he was anxious to save the railway coal wagons. Therefore, it was decided to supply the cities near the opencast workings by road lorry, as much as possible.

Is it not a fact that the wagon situation has improved and is now quite different from what it was last summer? Are not wagons now available to distribute this opencast coal?

It is always easy to think in the spring that the situation is much better than it will be in the autumn.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the present stock of household coal in Accrington; whether he will give an assurance that improved supplies are now arriving; and whether it is expected that the full allocation for all householders will be available during this year.

I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the prospects of an improvement in the supply of coke to iron foundries.

I regret that I cannot hold out any such prospects.

Does the Minister realise that this is a basic industry, doing very important work, and that in recent months it has been meeting difficulties from all directions? One of these directions was that it did not get help from the Department in improving coke supplies?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is an acute shortage of hard coke. The steel industry has to have the very highest priority for it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are talking about a main area for the supply of iron which goes into houses? No matter how many bricklayers are employed, unless drain pipes are supplied the houses cannot be occupied. This is a vital in-dusty in the Stirlingshire and Falkirk area.

If there is to be a question of priority between the iron foundries and the steel industry the right hon. Gentleman should address his Question to the Minister of Supply.

Will the expected improvement in coal supplies include an improvement in the supply of coking coal, and will there be a likelihood of an improved supply of coke?

It is a question of coke oven capacity. Coke is produced not only by the National Coal Board but by independent producers and by the steel industry itself. There is an acute shortage of hard coke in the steel industry.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in Lancashire during the past 12 months with the erection of pit-head baths.

I am informed that one has been completed and 21 others started.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why it is that Group I coal is unobtainable in East Suffolk; and when there is likely to be a supply.

I am afraid that it is not practicable for the National Coal Board to make all the eight qualities of house coal available in all consuming areas.

Is the Minister aware that I am speaking particularly on behalf of the small town of Southwold, which is very much cut off, and that I am not asking for all the eight varieties of coal? Cannot he see his way to allowing at any rate one of these groups of coal, namely, Group 1, to be sent to Southwold?

The hon. Member may not be asking for all the eight varieties but just for a supply of Group 1, but that is the one variety which is in the shortest supply, forming only 2 per cent. of the large coal available. In fact, none of the quality is produced in the East Midlands coal field. The hon. Gentleman could have a group 2 or Group 3, which are not very different.

Why should the Minister discriminate against one particular area? Other areas which are much more remote from centres of production get this coal. Southwold is particularly badly placed in the winter, and we want the very best coal.

I am not discriminating. When the Coal Board drew up this scheme, which I thought a good scheme, they tried to make a balance so as to be able to supply most of the varieties that were required in the different areas of the country, and also to avoid uneconomic transportation at too great distances.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why there was a reduction of the coal allowances to railway workers in Swindon to 28 cwt. for the period ending last April.

I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will issue a statement in convenient form reporting the activities of the Fuel Efficiency Division of his Department during the period of 12 months ended 30th April, 1952; what extension of their activities took place compared with earlier years; what is the staff and cost, including all overheads, of the Fuel Efficiency Division; what new ideas it is bringing forward for inducing greater industrial fuel efficiency; and to what extent steps are being taken to secure broadcasting and television facilities for fuel efficiency propaganda.

I will certainly take any suitable opportunity of making a statement, but I do not think the matter calls for a White Paper.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a position to announce the details of the £1,000,000 Government loan which is to be made available to assist various industries in installing fuel-saving equipment.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can now make a statement on the Government's plans to make loans available to assist industrial consumers to improve their boiler plant or the insulation of their factories and thus lessen the consumption of fuel.

Consultation on the details of the scheme are now taking place with representatives of industry and I hope to be able to announce the details by the end of the month.

Would the Minister kindly let us have information as soon as possible about the applications which are made by industrialists?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to keep in force the provisions of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951.

asked the Attorney-General whether the Government will extend the provisions of the Leasehold Act, 1951, for a further two years, or until such time as comprehensive legislation is introduced.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement in respect of proposed legislation to protect lessees of leasehold premises against eviction on the termination of their tenancies and against the imposition on them of increased rentals.

The Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, does not expire until midsummer 1953. The Government are considering what legislation to introduce in its place.

In view of the uncertainty which the present situation causes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the Government's intentions are announced soon?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have their attention fully directed to this matter.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I asked in Question No. 15 whether the Government would extend the provisions of the Act either for two years

"or until such time as comprehensive legislation is introduced"?

Does he not agree that it is simple to give an assurance that if the comprehensive legislation is not introduced these provisions will be extended?

I cannot give an undertaking about legislation which will not be possible in this Session.

Assuming that Her Majesty's Government lasts sufficiently long, can we have an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that existing legislation will not be allowed to lapse and that something will take its place before it expires?

In regard to something else taking its place, I can certainly give an assurance. I think the right hon. Gentleman can also take that assurance in the light of the very unlikely nature of the possibility that he has just mentioned.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate that well before 1953 action will be taken so that people who are coming to the end of their tenancies, or are likely to come to the end of their leaseholds, will not be in danger of eviction or of higher rents?

We fully appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member, and we shall consider the matter very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of the note presented to the Icelandic Government recently, concerning the dispute over fishing rights; and what reply he has received to this protest.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Government of Iceland to his note regarding the extension of Iceland's territorial waters.

The Icelandic Government have not yet replied to the Note which Her Majesty's Government addressed to them on 2nd May. I am placing a copy of this Note in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that for over 60 years British trawler men have fished in these waters and that last year they were successful in catching over 600,000 cwt. of high-class fish? Is he further aware that unless something is done we shall lose this source of fish and the housewives will suffer? Will he give a promise that he will do all in his power to impress this on the Icelandic Government?

I will certainly undertake to do everything within my power to get a satisfactory solution of this problem. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the text of the Note which has been placed in the Library, these considerations have been brought to the attention of the Government of Iceland.

Will the Under-Secretary do all in his power to speed a reply to the Note he has sent because of the tremendous importance of these waters to the British fishing industry, and in consequence of the action already taken by another Government which by considerably limiting valuable fishing grounds, is holding up British fishing fleets?

We shall certainly do all we can to expedite the reply of the Government of Iceland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British subjects who have completed their period of National Service in this country are being called up for a further period of military service when they emigrate to the United States of America; and if he will make representations against this.

Every male British subject between the ages of 18½ and 26 who is admitted to the United States for permanent residence is liable for training and service in the United States armed forces. Deferment is possible in certain circumstances and certain categories of men who have previously served in the United Kingdom Armed Forces are exempt unless the United States is at war or declares a national emergency. Men in this age group admitted on temporary visas are also liable after one year's residence in the United States. They may obtain release from this obligation, but are thereby permanently debarred from acquiring United States citizenship.

I should be glad if the hon. Lady would send me particulars of any cases of hardship which she may have in mind, other than the one which she has already communicated to my right hon. and learned Friend.

While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I put to him one or two points which, I am sure, must cause grave anxiety to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to parents in this country? Is he aware that since putting down this Question I have had information from other sources and that it seems to be quite a regular thing that lads who have done their National Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is he aware that a lad who has done his National Service last year as a Z reservist have also been called up, and will he make representations to the authorities that an ally ought not to treat British subjects in this way?

The hon. Member will appreciate from my answer that these conditions apply to permanent residents in the United States of America, and people who go to the United States of America must, therefore, accept the obligation of their being in the United States. The list of deferment categories is very broad, and if the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter further I will give it to her.

Are Americans in this country liable to a similar obligation?

No, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any precedent, and, if so, what, for the conscription of British subjects into foreign armies, and whether this law was enacted with or without prior consultation with the Government of this country?

That is a much wider question, of which I should like notice.

Do we understand that if a young American comes to this country and takes up what might be regarded as permanent residence, he is not eligible to be called up for National Service?

Under the Act, which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself passed through this House, the answer to his question is that no obligation for service falls upon American citizens in this country.

If that be the position, which no doubt it is, surely there ought to be a reciprocal arrangement with regard to British subjects?

May I ask my hon. Friend whether this liability of British subjects may not easily involve them in having to serve under the same commander twice?

Is there not a simple answer to this, that if British subjects do not like the laws of America there is no reason why they should go there to live?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the sum per head each British ex-prisoner of war will get under the Japanese Peace Treaty.

The fund, which will eventually become available under Article 16 of the Japanese Peace Treaty for indemnifying Allied ex-prisoners of war, and which is estimated at about £5 million, will be distributed by the International Red Cross.

As regards Article 14 about £1¼million will be available in the United Kingdom. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement made by the ex-Foreign Secretary on 25th July last.

Will my hon. Friend give careful consideration to altering the statement made by the previous Foreign Minister so that the funds under Article 14 are only for those who were prisoners in the Japanese theatre of war and not in all theatres of war, because I believe that this is probably the wish of the majority of the people in this country? As these men have waited a very long time, I hope that we shall soon be able to give them that assurance.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the principal commitments entered into by this country in the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373; and what revisions of the Treaty have been made since it was first signed.

The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 has never been revised and it has been confirmed in later treaties on a number of occasions. The Treaty is couched in general terms and under it the two partners undertake to give one another mutual aid and assistance.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only copy of this Treaty which is available in the House is written in a language which is now commonly regarded as being dead, but that it is alleged that there is a copy in Norman French which cannot be found? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it should now be brought up to date and put into a language commonly understood by all those who will have to carry out its commitments? For the information of the House and people generally, could the hon. Gentleman say what some of the commitments are?

As I said in my answer, this is a general Treaty. Perhaps I may read an extract from it to indicate how general it is:

"As true and faithful friends the contracting parties shall henceforth reciprocally be friends to friends and enemies to enemies and shall assist, maintain and uphold each other mutually by sea and by land against all men that may live or die, of whatever dignity, station rank or condition they may be, and against their lands realms and dominions."

I will most certainly undertake to place a copy of this translation in the Library for the information of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the representations which he has received from the United States Government asking for British participation in a naval blockade of China.

No such representations have been received.

I am very glad to hear it. Under those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of the United States about the statement made by the U.S. Deputy Secretary for Defence last Wednesday, and make it perfectly clear that in the event of any naval blockade which is undertaken without the consent of the United Nations, not one British ship or one British life will be risked because of any hysterics?

I have looked up the statement. I think it said that a number of alternative courses are available—they certainly are. Our own views on this matter are well known to the United States Government and, as I have said many times in the House, there is no commitment of any kind on our part.

asked the Minister of Transport when and where consultations took place between him and the British Transport Commission as required by Section 4 of the Transport Act, before he made his standstill order on fares; on what date notice was given to the members of the Commission that such consultation was to be held and of the nature of the matter to be discussed at such consultations; what members of the British Transport Commission were present; and what reasons were given him for the absence of those who were not present.

Mr. Speaker, I must apologise for the length of this answer.

On 10th April, the Chairman of the Commission, who was then out of London for Easter, was asked by my predecessor to meet him and the Secretary of State on the morning of the 15th. As the conversation was by long-distance telephone, the exact purpose of the meeting was not discussed, but I have no doubt that the Chairman knew that, among other issues, the fares problem would be discussed. Lord Hurcomb said that the Commission would also be available that day.

A meeting took place between the two Ministers and Lord Hurcomb on the morning of 15th April at the office of the Secretary of State. The Chairman was told that the Government had had under consideration the question of fare increases outside London and that the Minister proposed to issue a direction under Section 4 of the Transport Act, 1947, to suspend them. The Chairman was invited to consider this, consult his colleagues on the Commission and return with them later that day to meet the two Ministers. At this point he said he did not think it would be necessary for them to come.

Lord Hurcomb spoke to the Secretary of State on the telephone in the afternoon saying that he had met his colleagues on the Commission and had discussed the matter with them. While the Commission did not welcome the course proposed, they did not consider it necessary to meet the Secretary of State and the Minister.

While I wish the Minister no particular harm, may I congratulate him on his new office? May I ask him whether his predecessor's consultation with the Chairman of the Commission was not much more like an ultimatum than the particular form of consultation which was supposed to be laid down in the Transport Act, and does he not think that his predecessor was sailing very close to the legal wind?

No, Sir. The Act in no way suggests that the concurrence of the Commission must be obtained. Policy must be a matter for the Government. The Government decided what they thought was best, and consulted, in the strict sense of the term, the Commission, whose concurrence was not obtained but whose concurrence was not necessary. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that this was quite right, that this was not one of the moments where large increases on individuals should be made in order to iron out anomalies that had gone on for a long time. A quite proper view was taken by. Her Majesty's Ministers of their responsibilities.

While agreeing that, in the end, the Government's view could legally prevail, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that it is clear from his answer that the Commission were told what the Government had decided to do, given an opportunity, within a matter of hours, of expressing an opinion, but clearly given the impression that whatever the Commission said the Government had made a decision. In fact, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. Surely he will agree that that does not conform in either spirit or letter with the word "consultation" contained in the Act of Parliament.

I cannot accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who took an active part in the debate on the 1947 Act, said that the purpose of the Transport Act would fail unless the Minister concerned was responsible to the House for the actions of that public corporation. That procedure has been exactly followed.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the repeated objections from the Opposition Front Bench to Government intervention in this matter are in no way in keeping with the urgency of this situation as regards London, or the interests of the travelling public? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to speed up the Transport Commission's consideration of the anomalies?

Is the Minister aware that we are not discussing London, but the provinces? This has nothing to do with London. Does the Minister not appreciate that his predecessor had a period between 15th April and 1st May before these increases were due to come into force? Why should he give the Chairman of the Commission just a few hours' notice in which to consult his colleagues and have a proper meeting before taking a final decision of this sort? May I, finally, ask him if it is not the case that the question of consultation was specifically written into the Act to prevent this sort of thing from happening?

It seemed to the Government—I think quite rightly—that public anxiety should be allayed at the earliest opportunity. The Easter holiday intervened—[An HON. MEMBER: "The elections."] The elections had nothing to do with it. Thursday, 10th April, when Lord Hurcomb was telephoned, was the eve of Good Friday. It appeared to be best to meet as soon as possible after the Easter holiday. That is why the meeting took place on the 15th.