asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the grant of £800,000 by Her Majesty's Government to the Burmah Oil Company has resulted in rehabilitation of the company's works and in the production of oil.

The Burmah Oil Company's field at Chauk has been rehabilitated, and I understand that production of crude oil is now in the region of 100,000 tons a year. This rehabilitation was not, however, paid for out of the grant by His late Majesty's Government, which was given to assist the Government of Burma to maintain employment, and took the form of compensation for losses sustained as a result of insurgent activities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Defence Agreement dated 29th August, 1947, between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Burma, he will make a statement on the military action taken by the Government of Burma against the Chinese Nationalist troops in the Kengtury Province of Burma.

No, Sir. The Defence Agreement has no bearing on this matter.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the troops in question came to Burma from Siam? Secondly, does he still take the view that the Chinese Nationalist authorities in Formosa have no responsibility for these Chinese troops in Burma?

The internal aspect of this is, of course, one for the Government of Burma. As the right hon. and learned Member will remember, I did make a suggestion about international examination of this problem which was not taken up. Therefore, I do not see that there is anything more I can do in this respect except to make inquiries and from my inquiries I do not think that there is now any traffic through Siam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations regarding the Icelandic fisheries dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the rejection by the Icelandic Government of our proposal that the trawler owners of the two countries should meet to decide the dispute over the fishing-zone limits on the grounds that they are not the right people to decide this matter, what further action he proposes to take to arrange discussions between the two Governments concerned in an effort to find an early solution to this important problem.

Her Majesty's Government are continuing their efforts to find a basis for the solution of this dispute: I hope myself to find opportunities in the near future for some direct discussion of these matters.

Is it not a fact that the Government are, in effect, handing over their duties in this matter to private interests, who are thus made the arbiters of what fish the public will and will not get? Is that not contrary to the public interest? Will the Government re-assert themselves and bring order into the industry, so that the consumers may get the fish that they require?

As far as internal matters are concerned, they are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and not for me. As far as the international aspect is concerned, I thought I made it clear that we were not abandoning our interests. As I said, I hope to have direct discussions on these matters in the near future. I do not at the moment wish to go further, because that would not help my direct discussions.

Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that there is widespread disappointment at what seems to be the weak-kneed attitude of the Government in this important matter, in that the Government are not taking it up in an international way and that this has been left too long to the vested interests of the Hull and Grimsby trawler owners, who have been doing well out of it?

To whom are we supposed to be weak-kneed? Is it the trawler owners or the Icelandic Government?

The trawler owners.

It would be as well if the hon. Member made up his mind what he meant.

Has it been suggested to the Icelandic Government that once Spain ratifies the Over-fishing Convention early in the New Year, a conference should take place and that until then they should withdraw their embargo? If so, what reply did they give?

That is an aspect which we have considered and discussed. I say, to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) that I am doing my utmost to secure a settlement by peaceful means, and I thought that he would prefer that method.

Have the Government received a suggestion from the Icelandic Government that this matter should be referred to the International Court? If so, what reply was given?

I think I am right in saying that we have not received such a suggestion. If it were made, I should require to consider it for a variety of reasons, which the hon. Lady has in mind. This is one of the most complicated international tangles which it has ever been my, not privilege, but misfortune, to have to deal with.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been reported in the Press that such a suggestion has been made by the Icelandic Government? Will he check up?

I am fairly sure that there has been no such official statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the estimate of £550,000 in 1952–53 for the provision for estimated net deficiency on the accounts of Eritrea for the period from 1st April to 15th September, 1952, has been realised.

The Eritrean account for the period in question has not yet been closed, but the revised estimated net deficiency is not now expected to exceed £150,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a report on the progress of the negotiations with the Bonn Government on the disposal of Herr Alfred Krupp's assets in the German coal and steel industries.

The negotiations to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 1st December are still in progress, and I have no further report to make at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable alarm has been caused by a report in the Press that the negotiations have broken down and that the Bonn Government were being very difficult over this matter? Will he make a full report to the House on the progress of these important negotiations, so that we can know what are the issues involved?

I can tell the hon. Lady that the negotiations have not broken down. The moment they reach a point at which I can usefully make a report to the House I shall certainly do so. They are, in point of fact, taking place with the Federal Chancellor himself. I cannot say any more today.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bring it home to Dr. Adenauer that the friends of German democracy in other countries are very anxious about this matter?

I am sure Dr. Adenauer understands that very well and also knows quite well that it is not the fault of Her Majesty's present advisers that we have this very difficult matter to handle.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although he speaks of negotiations the fact is that until the Bonn Treaty is ratified Her Majesty's Government are in a position to insist on a solution of this matter acceptable to British public opinion?

I should like to see that question on the Order Paper. I do not imagine that the hon. Member would suggest we can now insist on an alteration of the German Basic Law, which has been in force for some years and to which no amendment was suggested by the late Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now estimate the additional annual burden which will fall on the United Kingdom taxpayer, on account of defence expenditure in Germany, as a result of the recent Bonn Agreements.

No additional expenditure will fall on the United Kingdom in the period up to 30th June, 1953. Negotiations on the contribution from the German Federal Republic to Allied defence costs in 1953–54 have not yet taken place.

As I made clear in the debate on Germany on 31st July, if as a result of these negotiations additional expenditure should fall on the United Kingdom, reductions in other spheres would have to be made, in order to ensure that the total level of our defence expenditure in terms of external payments remains within our capacity.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I had in mind expenditure after June, 1953? Is it not very unsatisfactory that the Government should apparently have drifted into this large additional commitment without knowing what it was?

The Government have not drifted into any commitment, either large or small. The difficulty is that the Federal Government have not yet submitted proposals for defence expenditure and negotiations cannot take place until they do so—probably some time in the New Year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman at least deny Press reports that the burden on the British taxpayer is likely to be of the order of £80 million or £100 million a year?

I would prefer to adhere to what I have said, all the more so because I think that it bears a close resemblance to something which was said by the late Government.

Would it be possible to negotiate or arrange a reduction of our defence burdens elsewhere without any damage to our safety? Why could that not be done now in order to reduce the burden on this country?

We have to see what the estimates for the German contribution will be. I think I may fairly say that the figure will not be of the order mentioned by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Is this such a new development that it was not envisaged by the last Administration?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Red Cross are affiliated to the International Red Cross; and whether the International Red Cross have yet investigated the charges made by the Chinese Red Cross of atrocities having been committed by United Nations troops in Korea.

The Chinese Red Cross Society belongs to the International Red Cross movement and is also a member of the League of Red Cross Societies.

As regards the second part of the Question, the answer is "No, Sir." The offer made by Her Majesty's Government, in common with the United States Government, of an impartial investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross of Communist germ warfare charges has been consistently rejected by the Communists on the grounds that the International Committee of the Red Cross is a "tool of American imperialism." But I am discussing with the United States Government the possibility of taking effective measures to counter this propaganda.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman attach some significance to the fact that the booklet to which reference has been made, alleging the most appalling atrocities against the United Nations troops, is based on anonymous statements by British and American soldiers and unrelated photographs? Will he treat the matter with great seriousness in view of the distress caused in many homes in this country by the distribution of this pamphlet?

Yes, Sir; I do understand all that, but I also understand that some of the documents have the imprint of the Chinese Red Cross Society. The difficulty in dealing with them is that, so far, the Chinese have consistently refused to have any kind of investigation made by the International Red Cross. I am trying to see what other way we have of showing what we all feel is the falsity of these charges.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is by no means an unusual or even an unreasonable thing for a complainant not to be satisfied to submit his complaint to a tribunal nominated by the proposed defendant? Would he consider whether it is not possible to offer to discuss with them the setting up of a third party tribunal which would be acceptable to both sides?

The hon. Member will understand that the Chinese Red Cross Society being, as I said, a member of the International Red Cross movement, it is hardly acceptable that they should then say they are not prepared to have these charges examined by the movement of which they are themselves a member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the attack by Chinese gunboats on the British freighter "Rosita," near Foochow.

I am informed that the s.s. "Rosita" was intercepted off Foochow by two armed vessels, one of which fired a series of machine gun bursts after the "Rosita" had stopped. The master was killed. The raiders then boarded the "Rosita" and appeared to be sailing her to an island off Foochow, which is under Nationalist control. On learning of the death of the master, however, they left the "Rosita," which returned to Hong Kong.

A fuller report is awaited. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Consul at Tamsui (Formosa) has been instructed to draw the attention of the Nationalist authorities in Formosa to the incident, to ask for a full investigation, and to reserve all rights.

As this action, whoever was responsible for it, constitutes piracy, can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to safeguard our seamen on their lawful occasions?

Her Majesty's Consul is making investigations into this case, and I should prefer to make no statement until we have a fuller report of what took place, in the light of information furnished to him by the provincial authorities in Formosa.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that whatever the report says, the captain of this ship has been murdered? Will he press the strongest possible claim for compensation and, in future, see that Her Majesty's Navy take the strongest possible action to protect British ships?

If we can establish responsibility in this matter, Her Majesty's Government will certainly take the strongest possible action to demand and to receive compensation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of cars employed today on United Kingdom Government account in Paris and Washington; and the numbers in 1938.

The number in Paris today is 41, and in Washington, 32. The corresponding figures in 1938 were one each.

The cars in Paris serve Her Majesty's Embassy, the Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation and the British Council. The cars in Washington serve Her Majesty's Embassy, the Joint Services Mission and the Treasury and Supply Delegation.

Will the Under-Secretary resist any attempt on the part of the "hatchet group" opposite to compel our representatives abroad to pay calls on push-bikes?

I think all sides of the House would agree that calls by such methods of transport would be beneath the dignity of representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether there are not taxis in these countries? Cannot our representative there do exactly the same as Members of Parliament do here?

My hon. Friend will no doubt be glad to hear that the number of cars has been reduced since this Government came into office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he wilt approach the International Red Cross, the custodians of funds about to become available under Article 16 of the Japanese Peace Treaty, to give special consideration in the distribution of those funds to ex-Far East prisoners of war who have migrated from one part of the Commonwealth to another, and for whom no other provision has been made whatever.

The method of distribution of Japanese assets which will become available under Article 16 of the Peace Treaty rests with the International Committee of the Red Cross alone. I will, however, bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

I appreciate the difficulties, but does not my hon. Friend agree that, owing to the conditions of the Treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government, these funds now represent the only possible source of compensation for these men? Will he therefore make quite certain that this is brought to the attention of the International Red Cross?

We shall certainly do our best, of course, to do justice all round, but I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend and that of the House to the fact that by the terms of the Treaty itself, in Article 16, the distribution of these assets is one for the International Red Cross, and for them alone.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes to take, in view of the fact that the international panel of jurists selected to consider political activities of members of the United Nations Secretariat have now reported.

The report of the jurists has now been rendered to the Secretary-General of the United Nations with whom, as my hon. Friend stated on 24th October, the initiative in this matter rests. I am sure that he will be both willing and able to carry out his responsibility. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are also studying this report.

Does not the Foreign Secretary think it would be helpful if we conveyed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations our views on this matter and if we informed him that he would have our support in resisting any undue pressure there was to engage in witch hunting based on past affiliations?

I think we ought to see the report ourselves before making any communication to the Secretary-General, but I can say this: the McCarran Committee. as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, confines its activities to United States citizens. So far as our position about our own citizens is concerned, I should at all times be willing to make that clear to the Secretary-General, and I have no doubt that he is aware of it.

Can the Secretary of State say whether the report of the jurists deals with the obligations of all members of the United Nations, including the United States, arising, under Article 100 of the Charter, to respect the international character of the Secretariat and to do nothing that would seek

"to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities"?

Could he make the text of the jurists' report available to hon. Members?

I should like to make the text available, although I am not sure whether it is within my authority to do so. I should have to ask the Secretary-General; but I will consider the matter. My impression is that the report covers Article 100.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the recent report of the Chairman of the United Nations Technical Assistance Board showing that requests received from member governments for assistance will require an increase in income from approximately $18,000,000 in 1952 to $25,000,000 in 1953; and, as the United Kingdom was, with Australia, the only important country making a notable reduction in contribution in 1952 and now contributes less in proportion to income than any comparable country, if he will give an assurance that the United Kingdom contribution in 1953 will be substantially raised.

Her Majesty's Government are giving the United Nations expanded programme of technical assistance the fullest possible support. While I do not, therefore, accept the implications of the hon. Member's Question, I cannot at present anticipate next year's Estimates.

When extra expenditure is required for this international work and when we are contributing less than any other comparable country in relation to our income, is it conceivable that Her Majesty's Government will not increase their contribution?

I cannot accept the implications of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—

It is a fact.

—any more than I can accept those of his original Question. The United States, France, Canada and Australia have all had to reduce their contributions to this extended Technical Assistance Programme. As for our total contributions to the specialised agencies, I have often said in the House that Her Majesty's Government are second in total contributions only to the United States and, per head of the population, are the leading country.

Since an increase in the world production of food and raw materials might be a major factor in improving our own long-term balance of payments position, and since the United Nations Technical Assistance Board are achieving considerable results, would not an increased subscription be a very wise investment?

I accept the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman put his question, but I do not think he would expect me at this stage to anticipate next year's Estimates or the contribution which Her Majesty's Government will be able to make.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when we reduced our contribution last year the reason given by the Government was that it had not been possible to spend the money already voted. That has now been proved to be a fallacy and it has been shown that, in fact, they needed to spend more. The argument for a reduction last year will therefore not apply next year.

It may be that the argument for a reduction this year may not apply next year, but when we reduced our contribution—and let me add that it was reduced by only 10 per cent.—together with the other States I have already listed, we were under the impression that the total contributions would not be required.

As there is a dispute of fact between us, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter when there is more time to discuss it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far British citizens employed in the United States of America at the United Nations organisation's headquarters enjoy full diplomatic immunity.

No British subject employed by the United Nations in the United States enjoys full diplomatic immunity, but the United States Government accords officers and employees of international organisations located in the United States such immunities and privileges as are provided under the relevant United States laws. The most important are exemption from United States income tax on official emoluments and immunity from suit or legal process in respect of official acts, though the exemption from taxation does not apply to American citizens.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that in regard to British citizens so employed, no question of their loyalty can arise except their loyalty to the United Nations, and that there could not be any question of their special loyalty to the United States or to any other individual country?

I do not think there is anything in what the hon. Baronet has said to which I could take exception.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the political tests being applied at United Nations, regardless of the individuals concerned, are undermining the feeling of confidence in the impartiality of the United Nations? Is he further aware that there is a strong body of public opinion in this country which thinks that if this sort of thing does not stop there should be some thought given to the transference of United Nations to some other country?

There has already been a carefully thought-out Question to which I gave a considered reply, and I would rather stand by that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any decision has yet been reached by the International Court at The Hague, regarding the sovereignty of the Ecrehos and the Minquiers.

No, Sir.

Has any indication been given as to when the case will be heard?

It seems unlikely that this case will be heard before the spring or summer of 1953. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are these places?"] The House asks where these rocks are. They are off the coast of Jersey and for most of the year are four-fifths submerged, but an important question of fishery rights is involved, which is partly regulated by an Agreement of 1951. Whoever may be determined by the International Court to be the sovereign Power will be able to give its nationals certain exclusive fishery rights in certain enclaves.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the negotiations between General Neguib and Sir Ralph Stevenson on the situation in the Sudan.

As I told the House on 6th November, the Egyptian Government's comments on the new constitution for the Sudan raised a number of important points. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo is now discussing these questions with the Egyptian Government. But I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement on this matter? Does he still hope that the elections in the Sudan will take place before the end of this year?

Personally, I should have liked the elections to have taken place before some of the other complicated matters were settled, but we have not been able to agree on that, and that may have the effect of delaying the elections. I hope to give the House some form of progress report before it rises for the Christmas Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions or negotiations are now proceeding with the United States State Department with a view to transferring the rights and interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in the Persian oilfields and refinery at Abadan to a group of United States oil companies.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that rumours to the effect set out in my Question have become very widespread in recent days? Will he assure the House that the Government have no such intention as that implied in the Question? Can he further say whether he proposes to make a statement as to what the Government's ultimate policy in this matter is likely to be?

It was because I had heard these rumours that I was glad the hon. Gentleman put his Question on the Order Paper and I was glad to be able to say "None." I do not think I can improve on that answer. I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions, in reply to a Written Question, about the disposal of oil, which the hon. Gentleman will understand is different from his Question and on which I think some clarification of our position is also required.

In view of the paramount importance of oil to the modern world, will the right hon. Gentleman try, via the United Nations, to see whether we can get a regional pact for the Middle East by which this oil could be exploited by technicians for the benefit of the whole of the peoples and so that the native people would get the economic value and price for the oil?

That is quite a different question from that on the Order Paper, which asks if we are transferring our interests to the United States, and the answer to which is that we are not doing anything of the kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries are members of the Committee of Control for Tangier; and which participated in the discussions which have resulted in agreement on proposed revisions of the 1945 Agreement.

The members of the Committee of Control are: France, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal.

All these countries took part in the recent discussions.

Is it not a fact that under the 1945 Agreement the U.S.S.R. participated in the Committee of Control? What is her position now with regard to it?

She has shown no interest whatsoever in the international administration of Tangier. The answer which I have given lists those countries which are participating.

Have the U.S.S.R. never participated in that Committee of Control?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amendments have been made by the Committee of Control in Tangier to the 1945 Agreement; and whether the Sultan has yet given his approval thereto.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1st December. A reply is still awaited from the Sultan and no details can be made public until his views have been received.

In that reply the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House exactly what changes have been made in this agreement. Could he tell the House what they are, either by way of a White Paper Or the OFFICIAL REPORT?

When the recommendations have been put to and approved by the Sultan, as I hope they will be, I shall be happy to give full information to the House, either in the form of a White Paper, or a statement or answers to Questions.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which the Spanish regime is given an increased influence in the administration of Tangier, and what justification there is for Franco Spain being brought into the administration?

In answer to a Question he put last week, I told the hon. Gentleman that the object of the changes suggested is to make the administration of Tangier more international. As he is no doubt aware, under the 1945 Agreement and the 1928 Agreement and the 1923 Statute, Spain had certain rights and a certain position in the international administration. We are trying to get back to the position under the 1928 Agreement, which gave an international administration to Tangier.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that all these gestures of appeasement to Franco Spain are being received in the country with a great deal of disgust and disappointment?

There has been no gesture of appeasement to Franco Spain in this matter. Both Franco Spain and pre-Franco Spain, if I may use the term, have engaged in the administration in Tangier for many years. This is an international administration and we are trying to make it more workable and more international.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the Dominions have now ratified the Genocide Convention; and why Her Majesty's Government have not yet done so.

Australia, Canada and Ceylon have either ratified or acceded to the Convention.

Her Majesty's Government have not yet agreed to accede to the Convention for the reasons explained by my right hon. and learned Friend on 19th May.

Is the Minister aware that no specific reason has yet been given and that it is a very important matter? Will he consult those present at the Commonwealth Conference to see why they ratify and, if possible, come to the same conclusion?

This has been very fully explained before in the House, both by the former Government and by my right hon. Friend. The position is that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to ratify or to accede to the Convention until and unless they are absolutely certain they can give effect in their domestic law to all the provisions, and to the spirit of the Convention. That is the position of the Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many complicated legal and technical problems are involved. We wish to sort them out and to see whether we can legislate to fulfil our obligations before we accede.

Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the intention of the Czechoslovakian Government with regard to this Agreement?

asked the Minister of Food with which interested organisations he has held consultations as a part of the preparatory work for the forthcoming legislation to amend the Food and Drugs Acts.

I am arranging to place a list of the names of the organisations consulted in the Library of the House.

Will the hon. Gentleman state how the proposals have been received by the organisations which he has consulted?

In general, the proposals have received approval, though I cannot deny that here and there views were expressed which were not accepted in the framing of the Bill.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that as this legislation is likely to meet with approval in all parts of the House, the Committee stage may well be taken upstairs?

I cannot add to the answer which I gave in the early hours of 28th November.

asked the Minister of Food the reduction in the quantity of milk supplied to the public in October, 1952, as compared with October, 1951; and the reason for the decrease.

Sales were 2 per cent. less. There is too little evidence from which to deduce a reason for so small a fall.

How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that on 20th October his right hon. and gallant Friend said that consumption this year was practically the same as last year? Surely the hon. Gentleman must know by now, from all the dairymen's associations, that the reason for the decrease is the policy being followed by this Government, under which many people cannot afford the amount of milk they would like to have?

The hon. Gentleman's argument is not supported by the fact that the fall in milk consumption has been in the higher income groups.

Is not it the case that the fall has been confined to certain distributors whose efficiency in distribution is less than that of private enterprise?

asked the Minister of Food when it is expected that a handbook on hygiene for catering establishments will be issued to local authorities; and by whom the handbook is being written.

The handbook is expected to be on sale early in the new year. It has been written in my Department

Will the Minister consider advising the author, or authors, to consult some of the clean food guilds and the St. John Ambulance Association, which have now had a considerable amount of experience in the campaign for cleaner food?

There has been widespread consultation, in the Department and outside, but I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Food at what prices coarse grains are available for sale to this country in Turkey; and what purchases he is making.

Turkish coarse grain has recently been offered for sale to the Ministry, but at prices considerably above world values. We have made bids, but no purchases have resulted.

In view of the fact that in the first 10 months of this year exports to Turkey amounted to £28½ million and imports were only £5½ million, will the Minister do his best to see that whatever foods are offered he will try to purchase?

We are willing to take coarse grain from Turkey at reasonable prices

asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the world sugar conference which is to meet in London next year.

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

asked the Minister of Food the total consumption of sugar by domestic consumers and manufacturers, respectively, for the 12 month periods ended 1st November, 1951. and 1st November, 1952.

During the year ended 3rd November, 1951, approximately 1,041,000 tons for domestic consumption and 897,000 tons for manufacturing, and in the year ended 1st November, 1952, 933,000 tons and 857,000 tons respectively.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say when he hopes to be in a position to purchase more sugar?

When our balance of payments permits us the necessary dollars.

asked the Minister of Food if he will import Norwegian margarine or otherwise find from Norway their recipe for margarine which is more palatable than ours.

No, Sir. Norwegian margarine is regularly tested here. It is not thought that the hon. Lady's preference for its distinctive flavour would be generally shared by consumers in this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have contacted and been at tea with all the British brides in Norway and that at that tea all of them asked why we in this country cannot have this kind of margarine, which really tastes like butter?

I understand—indeed, I know from personal experience—that Norwegian margarine has rather a strong, sour-milk flavour. Experience has shown that in this country the product we make at home is preferred.

Sir William Darling.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the margarine and of the Minister's reply I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

On a point of order. Is not it a fact that, according to your Ruling, Sir, and the Ruling of your predecessor, the previous comment by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) is not, in point of fact, a point of order?

It has become customary to indicate by these words that what is to follow is not really a supplementary question but a statement on another issue.

On a point of order. You called my name, Mr. Speaker. May I respond to it by asking a supplementary question?

Before the hon. Member could ask his question notice was given that the matter would be raised on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Food how far the present supply position of margarine is adequate to meet demand; and if he will now de-ration this commodity.

As my right hon. and gallant Friend indicated in his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 12th November, the probable unrationed demand for margarine could not be met without a substantial increase in imports which we can ill afford at present.

Can my hon. Friend say what extra raw material supplies will be required to abolish margarine rationing?

To the value of £22 million a year, £10 million of which would be in dollars.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the present method of ascertaining actual take-up of rationed foods is unsatisfactory; and if he will make inquiries as to the possibility of securing a more accurate return from individual consumers.

No, Sir. The National Food Survey already provides information about the take-up of rationed foods by individual families.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on 26th November he said that this method

"… does not necessarily reflect the position as it really is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 534.]

That was a reference to the take-up in the shops. Does not he agree that it is most important to settle the difference between the two sides of the House, because we maintain that these rationed foods are not being taken up by the poorer sections of the community?

The National Food Survey does not set out to give the ration take-up by the retailer from the wholesaler. It sets out to investigate, on the basis of family budgets, the take-up by the individual purchaser.

If that survey shows that bacon and butter are being taken up by old-age pensioners, is not it time that we had another?

The hon. Lady must not criticise statistically valid conclusions because they are inconvenient.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many families were questioned by the survey to elicit the information that more milk is being bought by the poor and less by the rich?

The weekly budgets of 1,000 families are taken. That is the same number as were taken under the previous Administration which used this method.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House that the figures he gave were based on the National Food Survey? If that be the case, did he order a special inquiry, because it usually takes two or three months to prepare the figures?

I have not got the hon. Member's point. Any figures I gave from the National Food Survey were from its official conclusions.

I asked whether the figures were given from the National Food Survey or from other sources?

I have given no figures in answer to this question. Some of the figures I gave a week ago were from the National Food Survey.

asked the Minister of Food the take-up of bacon, meat and butter for each of the four weeks in November, showing the comparison with October, and similar details for 1951 for the same period.

As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the application by the bakers for an increase in the price of bread, he will give an assurance that the cost of a loaf to the consumer will not be increased.

The application is for an increase in the price of the small 14 oz. loaf only. It is being examined but I cannot anticipate my right hon. and gallant Friend's decision.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the price of bread goes up

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures are up or down on the average take-up?

In the case of some, the take-up is slightly up; in the case of others it is level; in the case of bacon it is down.

The claim is based on increased costs of production, but my right hon. and gallant Friend has reached no decision on it. That, I think, is as far as I can go.

asked the Minister of Food to make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with butchers' organisations about the display of price tags on meat in the shops.

The matter is still under consideration.

Will the hon. Gentleman say when it is hoped to reach a conclusion, because it is now several months since I first asked a Question on this subject?

Within the next two or three weeks.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary see whether the pre-war custom of putting price tags on English and imported meat cannot be brought back so that the customer may know, by looking at the tags, which meat is produced in this country and which is imported?

There is at present a legal requirement that tags indicating imported and home-produced meats should be used. If the hon. Member has any information about any failure to observe that requirement, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is three and a half years since I had an assurance that this question was under active consideration, and that a decision would be arrived at by the leading butchers in the country to introduce the tags immediately?

I did not give the assurance three and a half years ago, but I am giving one now: a conclusion will be reached in the next two or three weeks.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that the meat ration has now been reduced to less than it was last year, he will make arrangements for a Christmas meat bonus.

No, Sir.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary take the opportunity to correct the mistake that appears in HANSARD for last Monday in regard to meat production, and also explain to the House why, if his right hon. and gallant Friend is right and supplies are increasing week by week, he should, at the same time, cut the ration and refuse to give even a Christmas bonus?

The hon. Member knows that the Argentine discussions and negotiations are not yet complete. My right hon. and gallant Friend does not propose to follow the example of the previous Government in 1950, when they put up the meat ration to a high level just before Christmas with the result that it fell to an unprecedented low level immediately afterwards.

Does the hon. Gentleman. agree or not with his right hon. and gallant Friend, who said last Monday that supplies of meat were increasing week by week?

The consumption of meat in this country this year is 15 per cent. higher than last year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future supply position is dependent upon the conclusion of the Argentine discussions.

asked the Minister of Food what allowances of rationed foods will be available for functions celebrating Her Majesty's Coronation.

I cannot yet add to the reply my right hon. and gallant Friend gave to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 26th November.

Cannot the Minister help in this matter? Cannot he tell us whether there will be some chance of street parties and other local celebrations for the Coronation being allowed a little bit extra so that they can celebrate in a proper fashion?

I hope that an answer will be given very soon. I appreciate the point. We are seeing what can be done to help just the kind of gathering to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Minister of Food why purchases of flour in excess of the average consumption have been banned to bakers, making it impossible to lay up stocks.

Deliveries of flour have been restricted to the normal average in order to prevent the laying in of excessive stocks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the trade itself master bakers anticipate that this means a rise in price? Will he say that this is incorrect? Also, will he bear in mind that a rise in the price of bread affects the poorer section of the community more than any other?

My right hon. and gallant Friend announced recently that he was discussing the decontrol of cereals, including feedingstuffs. To prevent any undue accumulation of stocks during the discussions, it has been decided to limit stocking to the average for the time of the year.

asked the Minister of Food what quantities of fruit pulp, capable of production here, will be imported next year.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on 3rd December.

asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that adequate storage and processing facilities exist in this country to deal with the present acreage of fruit.

Existing storage and processing facilities are thought to be adequate for a normal fruit crop from the present acreage. In times of glut the need for, and so the adequacy of, such facilities will, of course, depend on public demand for fruit and fruit products.

How does the hon. Gentleman explain the constant waste of fruit that takes place even during an average cropping year?

The Question relates to storage and processing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put a separate Question down.

asked the Minister of Food how much fish from the ports of Hull and Grimby which was unsold during the week commencing 24th November was disposed of to fish-meal factories.

At Hull 107 tons, and at Grimsby 50 tons.

Does not this show that, in spite of the action by the Icelandic Government, these large quantities of fish failed to secure even one bid from the buyers at the wharf; and does not it seem that the industry is doing quite well on its own account?