asked the Minister of Materials what materials and commodities are still the subject of State trading by his Department; what was the aggregate value of stocks held in respect of these materials and commodities at the latest convenient date; to what extent such stocks are progressively being liquidated in favour of private traders' stocks; whether a time-table has now been established to end State trading in each of these materials and commodities and return the business to private traders; and when he estimates that his Department will be extinguished.

In addition to selling the output of some Government-owned plants, my Department now imports and distributes copper, aluminium, magnesium, tungsten ore, jute and imported jute goods, and sulphur and pyrites. A similar exclusive responsibility is undertaken for soft hemp. Other hemps have been in private hands for some time. The aggregate value of the public trading stocks of all these commodities held at 31st December last was approximately £80 million. While public trading continues to be necessary, a general liquidation of stocks cannot be pursued as an independent operation.

Is not this rather unsatisfactory? Has my right hon. Friend observed the curious habits of the Minister of Food, who is busily engaged in expurgating controls, eliminating his Department, and extinguishing himself, and would not my right hon. Friend have a little more enthusiasm towards these very worthy objectives?

Within the last few months, we have returned to private trading zinc, lead and timber, which account for a considerable proportion of the total. We are actively examining each particular case where public trading remains.

Will the Minister please not take any notice of what his hon. Friends on the other side say? They are just talking a lot of nonsense.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the elimination of State trading was one of the principal objectives of this Conservative Government when it took office?

asked the Minister of Materials the annual cost of his Department; how many officials it employs including ancillary staff; and to what extent this number will be reduced during the period to 30th June, 1953, in view of his proclaimed intention to end State trading in materials and commodities as rapidly as possible.

The administrative cost of the Ministry of Materials during the current financial year will be approximately £1,100,000. A provision of £1,220,250 was taken in the Estimates for the current financial year based on a total staff of 1,854 at the beginning of the year and an estimated total staff of about 1,420 at 31st March next. The actual reduction in staff has been greater than estimated with consequent savings on the Vote. The total staff on 30th June next will be about 1,050 and the further reductions will be reflected in the Estimates for the forthcoming year.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no repetition of the very sad loss, at the taxpayer's expense, which occurred in last year's Estimates amounting to no less than £44 million, and will he show a little more enthusiasm to get rid of these 1,050 officials?

As I explained at the time of the Supplementary Estimates, the losses to which my hon. Friend refers— his figure is not quite correct—were due to the fact that after the profits had been made when prices had been going up, there had been a season of falling prices.

Is the Minister aware that he could have saved the cost of his Department had he more energetically attempted the development of the material which is mentioned in Question No. 3? Will the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to his real task, which is the acquirement of new and substitute materials?

I shall be answering a Question about that new material in a moment.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at least one of the 1,050 will on the next occasion produce a document which is more intelligent than the one we discussed recently?

asked the Minister of Materials whether his attention has been drawn to the growing use in the United States of America of bagasse as a raw material for the production of newsprint and paper; and whether, in view of the fact that half the world's bagasse is produced within the British Commonwealth, he will take steps to save dollar expenditure on importing newsprint by encouraging the more extensive import of this new raw material.

I understand that experiments in the United States of America have established the technical possibility of successfully manufacturing newsprint, as well as other kinds of paper, from bagasse; but the possibility of producing them on a commercial scale has yet to be demonstrated. I am afraid, therefore, it is premature to consider saving expenditure of dollars on newsprint by using bagasse in this country for newsprint manufacture. I should add that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement as to the proportion of bagasse produced in the Commonwealth.

Is it not a fact that machinery in the British paper mills can employ this material without alteration? Is it not also a fact that paper produced by this method in America is of excellent quality? In view of the shortage of world newsprint owing to increasing literacy in Asia and Africa, is it not important to press on with this new material?

Experiments are continuing, but at present undoubtedly the ordinary form of newsprint is cheaper than newsprint manufactured from bagasse.

asked the Minister of Materials the total amount of the purchases he has made since 1st January, 1953, to date; and what materials were involved in those purchases.

A very large proportion of the purchases made by my Department are covered by standing contracts. The total payments for new supplies during the period mentioned, including supplies coming forward under these contracts, are of the order of £30 million. The materials involved are set out in the Ministry's printed Supplementary Estimates (Class IX, Vote 6, Subhead A). If, however, the hon. and gallant Member is referring to new purchase commitments made during the period the total would be about £6 million, of which about half was in respect of jute and jute goods.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these transactions could not have been properly, safely, nor efficiently left to private traders? Is he aware that if that confirmation is forthcoming some of us on this side of the House will support him against the raucous and doctrinaire critics on the other side of the House?

Every one of the cases of public trading where public trading remains has been examined and is being examined very carefully, and at the moment we think that the reasons for continuing public trading are temporarily decisive in favour of doing so.

Are not the figures my right hon. Friend has just given a further indication that this Department could be made a sub-department of another Department with a very large saving to the taxpayer?

That is a very different question, and I am not at all convinced that there would be any saving.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are very glad occasionally— although infrequently—to hear some commonsense from the Front Bench opposite?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement about British adherence to the Schuman Plan; and whether the British Mission to Luxembourg has yet reported on progress already achieved.

Although the United Kingdom cannot become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community, Her Majesty's Government have made clear on a number of occasions their desire to establish the closest possible association with it. Practical co-operation with the High Authority has been achieved by the establishment of a United Kingdom Delegation at Luxembourg which reports regularly upon the progress of the Community.

Why does the hon. Gentleman say so definitely that the United Kingdom cannot become a member? Are the Government studying the remarkable progress which is being made in regard to the Schuman Plan and taking precautions in case British industry finds itself up against a very serious competitor?

It really does not lie in the mouth of any hon. Member opposite to criticise Her Majesty's present Government for not taking any part in the Coal and Steel Community. It might also not have escaped the attention of the hon. Member that the Coal and Steel Community, as indeed the Defence Community, is intended to be the forerunner of a European Federation which organisation we could not join.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider giving us a White Paper about the present development and work of the High Authority itself and about the practical relations of our delegation with that Authority?

I will certainly consider that. I do not know whether it would be too early to give very much real information to the House about the working of our relationship, but I will certainly consider that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the steel-producing areas there is widespread hope that practical working arrangements with the High Authority will be concluded as soon as possible and that they have considerable confidence in that particular Mission to achieve that?

There is already a practical working arrangement, but we should prefer to wait for a while to see how it develops before considering any further development towards linking up.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to announce what arrangements have been made to prevent Herr Krupp from re-entering the coal, iron and steel industries.

I have, as yet, nothing to add to the supplementary answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 11th February.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that reports are constantly appearing in the Press—two in today's morning newspapers—purporting to give details of the terms which have been agreed to? If those terms are correct they will cause very great anxiety in this country, but, if one has to assume from the answer that the terms have not yet been agreed, may we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will secure the maximum cooperation of America to prevent Herr Krupp from again attaining a dominant place in German industry?

What I can tell the hon. Member is that negotiations are now making good progress and I hope to make a statement in the very near future. I cannot give him a date, but we will make a statement as soon as we can.

May we take it that the Western German Government are giving Her Majesty's Government every cooperation in this matter?

I think it would be fair to say: Yes, Sir, within the limits of their own statutory obligations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now give details of the compensation arrangements and the accompanying apologies from the Chinese Nationalist authorities in Formosa as a result of their interference with British shipping.

I presume the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the attack on the "Rosita." As I said on 16th February, the Nationalist authorities have accepted responsibility and Her Majesty's Consul at Tamsui has been instructed to claim compensation. He gave oral notification of the claim on 27th January and is awaiting certain supporting documents from the ship's owners in Hong Kong before submitting it formally. The tone of the Chinese Nationalists' reply was conciliatory and I am informed that those responsible are being tried by court-martial.

In view of the fact that this incident took place more than two months ago. could the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chinese Nationalist authorities have been most dilatory in their handling of this case? Would he not also agree that it is their deliberate policy to attempt to disrupt all legitimate shipping with Chinese Communist ports and that so long as this policy remains their policy these incidents are likely to recur?

I really do not think the right hon. and learned Member is being quite fair in this matter. I believe he was ill and put off his Question himself. We did receive this reply from the Chinese Nationalist authorities some time ago. We are now engaged in preparing the details of our claim which we will submit to them. I am bound to say that I wish in all cases where we have claims we could have such a response and know that those responsible were tried by courtmartial.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? Are these incidents not likely to recur so long as the Chinese Nationalist authorities disrupt all legitimate shipping with Chinese Communist ports?

The House ought to bear in mind that we have only two claims— this claim and one other, which was also admitted, but has not been settled, although payment has been promised.

Forty cases.

Only two claims.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking has yet been received by the Foreign Minister of the Chinese People's Government; and whether that Government is represented in the United Kingdom.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has, however, had interviews with the Chinese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many consulates Her Majesty's Government maintains on the mainland of China and on the island of Formosa, respectively.

Her Majesty's Government maintain a consular post at Shanghai on the mainland and at Tamsui on Formosa. There is also a consular section in Her Majesty's Embassy at Peking.

Would it be true to say that Her Majesty's representative in Formosa enjoys very reasonable facilities for looking after the interests of the British on that island?

I think that Her Majesty's consul at Formosa is both well treated by the provincial authorities to whom he is accredited and is discharging an important and useful function in that capacity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement by Sir John Sterndale Bennett, Deputy High Commissioner for South-East Asia, at the Economic Co-operation Asia and Far East Conference to the effect that there ought to be a reduction in development programmes, was made with his authority.

Sir John Sterndale Bennett was misreported. He emphasised the importance of development in South-East Asia, but pointed out that deficit financing might endanger development by causing inflation, and thus necessitate a reduction of some programmes.

Can the hon. Gentleman say that all the quotations from his speech, as reported in the Press, which indicated the damping down of development, the postponement of ail projects which would not lead to increased production of food within two years, and the need for financing what remains by reduction in the people's consumption, were all misreported and that he did not say anything to discourage development and economic expansion in South-East Asia?

If it would satisfy or comfort the hon. Baronet in any way, I should be glad to send a copy of the speech to him from which he will see that my answer is substantially correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present prospects of peace in Korea; and what advances towards peace have been made there recently.

I regret that I have no progress to report since my statements of 21st and 28th January. The Chinese and North Koreans have made no move to accept any of the United Nations' proposals for an armistice. In the meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government welcome the initiative taken by General Mark Clark in his statement of 21st February in which he asked the Commander of the North Korean and Chinese Communist forces in Korea whether they are prepared to proceed with the repatriation of seriously sick and wounded prisoners of war. Her Majesty's Government would warmly welcome any such development.

Is it not a fact that the outstanding questions are mainly of a juridical and justiciable character, and, if that is so, why not refer them to some judicial tribunal to solve?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that several proposals have been made to reach agreement on this difficult question of the prisoners of war, the most important being the Indian proposal, which received overwhelming support at the United Nations. I cannot believe that if the North Koreans and the Russians wanted an armistice they could not accept that proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the shooting of prisoners of war on Koje Island, South Korea, on Monday, 9th February, when one was killed and 38 wounded, 13 seriously.

Yes, Sir. As is now usual in these incidents, the prisoners started a demonstration in deliberate defiance of orders from the camp authorities, and attacked their guards with stones. After three unsuccessful attempts to restore order by the use of what are officially termed "non-toxic irritants"—I understand this is a form of tear gas—United Nations troops entered the compound, and, on orders from the Camp Commander, made use of tear gas and concussion grenades and opened fire with light weapons. Order was restored when the troops forced entry into the prisoners' huts. Casualties were one prisoner killed and 50 injured, of whom four have since died. There were no United Nations casualties. Subsequent inspection showed that the prisoners had made careful preparations for the incident, including the piling of stones inside the compound.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to responsible American newspapers who had their representatives on the spot, the only disturbance, or the only crime, that was committed by those who were massacred in this particular massacre was that they sang some of their folk songs and their own national songs? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman should, at long last, protest against these recurring massacres of unarmed prisoners?

I can only doubt that the hon. Gentleman's account of what happened is entirely accurate, because if one wants to sing folk songs one does not either have to pile up stones to do it or throw them at other people in the melee.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that whether one piles up stones when considering the desirability of singing folk songs or not may perhaps depend on what happened on previous occasions when one wished to have a perfectly innocent demonstration? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the character of the demonstration on 9th February which the United States authorities thought it fair and legitimate to prevent, and can he further state whether we have yet had any information whatever about the incident that took place on 1st October last year?

Yes, Sir. On the last part of the question, we have had a full account of the October incidents. I think that it has been made available in the Library. I have asked for a fuller report of this incident. Of course, it is not easy for anyone who is not present on these occasions to pass judgment, but it is fair to say that my impression of these incidents is that they are carefully prepared Communist demonstrations for a deliberate political purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with the Egyptian Government with regard to the position of British troops in the Suez Canal Zone.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the agreement reached with the Egyptian Government over the Sudan, what arrangements he proposes to make to expedite the withdrawal of British troops from Egypt.

No negotiations have yet taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the present Egyptian Government on this subject. As has been previously stated, however, it is our policy to arrive at a general settlement of the whole question of defence by negotiation with the Egyptian Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the principles on which we are to proceed in this matter? For instance, can he clearly state that even though British troops may to a large extent, be evacuated from the Canal Zone the responsibility of Britain for the defence of the free world will demand a continuing British interest in the preservation and maintenance of the military base in the Canal Zone?

However much I may agree with the last part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think I should be acting wisely by anticipating negotiations which have not yet opened.

In view of the statement constantly being made by General Neguib, would my right hon. Friend reiterate the statement made on 15th October, 1951, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in which he made it absolutely clear that there would be no question of evacuating Egypt without agreement? Will he, further, make it abundantly clear that that agreement will depend on the security of the Middle East and the safety of international communications generally?

I think it is clear that from what I said that our object is to seek agreement upon defence arrangements, in general, covering that area. I do not think that I have any reason to challenge the supplementary question of my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Will the Minister take into account that there are 80,000 British soldiers in that area, the great majority of whom are anxious to come home, and that the energies of these 80.000 people would be better devoted to building up industry in this country?

However we may view this matter, I think the House would desire to reach agreement if we can, and I do not think it will help to reach agreement to anticipate the opening of negotiations by a series of questions which may make them rather more difficult.

In these negotiations will the subject of the Middle East Defence Force be considered?

I think that is covered by the answer I have given, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have a detailed answer perhaps he would be good enough to put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the further proposals of the United Kingdom Government for a closer efficient working relationship between the forces of the United Kingdom and of the European Defence Community.

The details of our proposals are under discussion with the six Governments concerned. They include suggestions for the provision of training facilities, advice on training matters and tactical demonstrations, the exchange of officers for command and staff service, joint training exercises, the interchange of air force squadrons and co-ordination of the systems of air defence.

In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary is proceeding on Thursday to the United States and, presumably, this is the last occasion on which he will be present to answer Questions,—

Until I come back.

—will he consider proposing to the United States Government that both Governments should jointly recommend to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council that the N.A.T.O. Treaty should be made co-terminous with the projected E.D.C.?

That is an interesting proposal which, from time to time, I have seen ventilated in the Press, but I do not think it is the same as the Question on the Order Paper.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have agreed to promote closer association with the European Defence Community, is it also intended that there shall be uniformity in the conditions of National Service, having regard to the shorter period of operation in the other countries?

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that it does not lie within our power to determine the length of national service in other countries.

rose—

Order. We must get on.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say what reply he has made to the French Government's proposals for a closer British association with the European Defence Community.

No, Sir. The additional measures which we have in mind for establishing a close association with the European Defence Community will have to be discussed with the French Government and with the other Governments who signed the European Defence Community Treaty before any statement can be made.

Why cannot we be told something about what is going on in this matter? Is it true, for example, that the French have asked us to extend our guarantee to E.D.C. from 20 years to 50 years? Is it true also that they have asked us to leave our Forces in Germany for so long as the European Defence Community wishes them to be there? Can we be told nothing of the negotiations?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the reply to the first part of his supplementary is, "No, Sir." We have not been asked to do that. He will understand that the general negotiations are not merely matters between us and the French Government. They concern the whole European Defence Community. I cannot make a statement except with their full knowledge and consent. An important meeting is taking place in Rome between the E.D.C. Powers, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that I should say anything which would make the matter more difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amounts were contributed, respectively, by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to the work of relief, rehabilitation and resettlement of refugees and displaced persons through the International Refugee Organisation; and what are the amounts they are now contributing to the work of the United Nations High Commissioner's Office for Refugees.

During the lifetime of the International Refugee Organisation the following contributions were made by the countries concerned: United Kingdom, 76 million dollars; United States, 237 million dollars. The U.S.S.R. was not a member of the International Refugee Organisation and did not therefore contribute. The United Kingdom contribution to the Refugee Emergency Fund of the United Nations High Commissioner for 1952 was £100,000. To date, no contributions have been made by the United States or U.S.S.R.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amounts are contributed, respectively, by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to 'the work of developing the world's backward areas through the food and agricultural, health and other organisations of the United Nations.

Since the reply is long and involves a number of figures, I will. with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government is making to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund in the financial year 1953–54; and what is the policy of the Government with regard to the future of this fund.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial contribution Her Majesty's Government is prepared to make during 1953 in order to enable the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund to continue its work.

Her Majesty's Government propose to ask Parliament for £100,000 as their contribution for the coming financial year. As regards the future of this fund, the United Nations General Assembly is due to discuss this topic at its next session in September of this year. This discussion will be preceded by consultations between Governments and, in the meanwhile, I am not in a position to say what Her Majesty's Government's policy will be.

While the House will welcome this restoration of the cut made last year, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that over the years our contributions to this fund have been comparatively small? Will he undertake to make representations to the Treasury on the extreme importance of our supporting actively and with adequate finance causes such as this? Does he realise that it would help enormously in the ideological struggle which is now going on?

I fully share the hon. Gentleman's desire to give the utmost help to this organisation, but I cannot accept his rather disparaging remarks about the contributions that have been made in the past. Up to the end of August, 1952, total contributions from this country, including private contributions, were in the neighbourhood of 8.800,000 dollars, making the United Kingdom the fourth largest contributor.

As the future of this fund is to be discussed at the Assembly with the idea of putting it on a permanent basis, would the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of our also putting our financial contribution on a rather more regular and assured basis—perhaps a five-year basis or something of that kind—because that helps the organisation' concerned to do much better planning?

I will certainly consider the suggestion, but the hon. Lady will realise that these matters do not lie entirely within the province of the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning Argentine activities at Port Foster. South Shetlands.

Yes, Sir. As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position concerning the official negotiations with the Philippine Government for the repayment of monies due to British holders of Manila Railway Bonds and other shares.

I am not aware of any official negotiations with the Philippine Government. Negotiations for payment of the money owed to the bondholders of the Manila Railroad Company is, I understand, being undertaken by the bondholders direct with the Company.

Why are not the British Government supporting our people in this matter? Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Philippine President and Government have stated that they are responsible in dealing with the matter at their end, and that on American questions the American Government take an active part in supporting their citizens? Why should not we support ours?

For the very simple reason that we have not been asked by the bondholders.

Could not my hon. Friend try to find out and do something about it?

It is for the bondholders to ask the Government if they wish our aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position concerning the official negotiations for compensating the British holders of shares in confiscated Argentine Utilities.

My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the Joint Committee which the Argentine Government stated they intended to convene by the 31st January to consider the claims of certain British utility companies. The Committee has not yet been convened. Her Majesty's Embassy are continuing to press the matter with the Argentine Government.

Can my hon. Friend tell me why this is being done in the Argentine but not in the Philippines? Has not the same situation developed? Could not he let us know why the letter to the British Government which was sent at the time of the agreement has not been published when all other documents have? Exactly what is it proposed to do for our people?

The letter has not been published in full because this was a confidential exchange of letters with the Argentine Government. I have already given my hon. Friend and the House full information about all material and substantial points in the letter. The difference between this and the Philippine situation is that the Government were concerned in the negotiations with the Argentine Government of which this exchange of letters formed part. That is why the Government are engaged in this matter and will continue to press it.

Is not it true that the present situation as it has developed in the Argentine has resulted because of troubles in the past similar to those in the Philippines, and that it is only now that the British Government are taking up the question of our bondholders? Would not my hon. Friend try to do something for all bondholders abroad?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state in detail what proposals were contained in the British Government's Note of 21st January, 1953, to the Icelandic Government concerning the fisheries dispute between those two countries; what reply he has received; and if he will make a full statement on the present state of this dispute.

A reply to our proposals was received from the Icelandic Government on 18th February and is under immediate consideration. I should prefer to reserve any detailed statement until I have had an opportunity to give the reply full study, but the House will be informed of the position with the least possible delay.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—of course, he is—that this has been dragging on for a very long time and that it would be very much in the interests of consumers of fish in this country, and others, to have it determined as quickly as possible? Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite his study of this abstruse document?

The answer is, of course, that I am.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the British trawler owners, and no doubt also the British fishermen and trawler officers, may be content to see this dispute drag on for some time, there are many other interests affected, and that, for instance, in my constituency, the losses in the town from one cause or another due to the dispute have been estimated at £500,000 since the ban was imposed? Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the matter? In particular, may I ask him whether, unless he has taken some other action, he will bring the matter up on 4th March at the Overfishing Conference in conjunction with the French Government?

I have had a reply from the Icelandic Government and I must give it consideration. On the last part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Icelandic Government themselves resist discussion at this forum. I would rather consider what they propose before I say more.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made about the political interrogation of British aircrew landing in the United States of America; and if he is satisfied that no difficulties will arise in the event of any crew member being found to hold un-American political opinion.

No representations have been made about aircrews who, I understand, have encountered no difficulties with the United States immigration authorities. It is already the established practice of the British Overseas Airways Corporation to ensure that their crews going to the United States are provided with passports and United States visas.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that a British captain of an airline landing in the United States is liable to be asked to assure the immigration authorities that he is in full possession of his mental faculties, and that an air hostess is also liable, under the McCarran Act, to assure the interrogating officer on rather offensive questions about her moral conduct? Are we making any representations about these possibilities?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that these hypotheses are likely to arise. As I have already indicated, the provisions of the McCarran Act which are offensive to the hon. Gentleman do not apply in the case of aircrews, because they are provided with passports and with visas before they leave this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now state the capacity in which Marshal Tito will be visiting this country; and what programme for his visit has been arranged up to the present.

Marshal Tito is President of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as President of the Federal Executive Council. He is, therefore, both Head of the Yugoslav State and Head of the Government. Since it would be inappropriate for a State visit to take place before the Coronation, Marshal Tito's visit will be a private one. He comes, however, as the guest of Her Majesty's Government.

Does that mean that, if there are any requests for statements to be put to the Marshal or any other messages to be given to him, there will be an opportunity for that to happen, either by means of a joint meeting of Parliament or in some other way?

I do not think I could possibly give any undertaking of that kind. because I think it would be entirely unprecedented. I think my hon. Friend will have to leave it to Her Majesty's Ministers to express any views which they may feel it appropriate to express on the wide range of international topics which will. no doubt, be before us.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take all appropriate steps to show honour to a representative of a country which lost more in fighting on our side in the late war than any other?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what payments were due from the Italian Government to Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 20th March, 1950, about the transfer to Italy of the provisional administration of Somalia; and what sums have been received.

Two payments are due, one of a net sum of nearly £623,000 which represents (in the form of East African currency redeemed in Somalia) an appropriate return for the waiving of certain claims by Her Majesty's Government. The second is of some £158,000. the value of certain supplies and services which were provided to the Italian Armed Forces in connection with the hand-over, and for which receipts or acknowledgements are held. No payment has yet been received on either account.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs, and may I ask him what steps the Government are taking or considering to extract these overdue debts from the Italian Government?

Representations have been made to the Italian Government at intervals since the ratification of the Trusteeship Agreement regarding Somaliland, the latest approach from us being on the 9th of February this year. Our concern over the delay has been urgently represented to the Italian Government.

asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the investigation recently held in North-East England about food hygiene, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North; and what further steps he proposes to take to ensure cleaner food handling.

Yes, Sir. I welcome the newspaper articles to which the hon. Member refers. We hope to introduce legislation to amend the Food and Drugs Act as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the sooner that happens the better, because it will leave him less time for certain things which we dislike intensely?

I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for such legislation, but for quite different reasons.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was much less influenza in that part of the world than in any other, and will he therefore be careful ill any changes he makes?

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that for the years 1946–50 the approximate average consumption of ration quality carcase meat was 1,059,000 tons per year whereas for the years 1951–52 the average consumption had fallen to 882,000 tons per year; what was the reason for this short fall in consumption of 177,000 tons per year during 1951 and 1952; and what steps he is taking to enable domestic consumers to take up their full ration of carcase meat.

Yes, Sir. The average for 1951–52 was low mainly because 1951 consumption was abnormally low. This was due in part to reduced imports and partly to a running down of stocks in 1950. These figures have no connection with the take-up of the carcase meat ration.

Surely, the Minister has left out the most important cause, which is this question of increased price? Is it not the fact that, due to the rapid rise in the cost of foodstuffs, people cannot afford to take up their meat ration? Is it not a fact that the Minister has dodged it, as he dodged it all the way through?

What is a fact is that the take-up of rationed meat is almost 100 per cent.

asked the Minister of Food (1) the estimated average cost of imported Danish eggs; and what proportions of such cost represent freight, insurance, subsidy and production; and

Of the 3s. 6½d., about 4.2 per cent. represents freight, 0.1 per cent. insurance, and 1.0 per cent. landing charges. I cannot estimate production costs in supplying countries, nor disclose details of particular egg contracts.

Unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, he did not mention the subsidy, which is part of my Question.

There is a small subsidy on Danish eggs, not included in the cost of 3s. 6½d. per dozen.

I asked Questions about the subsidy on imported eggs and on imported Danish eggs, and, since the hon. Gentleman has asked permission to answer the two Questions together, could he not give me an answer now?

There is a small subsidy on all imported eggs, and there is a small subsidy on Danish imported eggs. Both figures relate to the current financial year.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that during November last, the latest month for which figures are published, the consumption of tea was less than for November, 1951, he will consider introducing price controls.

No, Sir. Consumption figures shown in the Monthly Digest of Statistics relate to deliveries from stocks and should not be confused with retail purchases.

Is this not largely the effect of the October price increase? Would the Minister not agree that it is not surprising, now that rationing has been abolished, that our consumption is substantially below pre-war consumption?

To quote the month of November, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the average retail price of tea at the end of November was lower than on the day of de-control.

Will the Minister not agree that the de-rationing of this commodity has been a complete and remarkable success?

In view of the fact that the House apparently has to understand by the Minister's recent reply that the consumption of food has no relation whatever to its price, will he tell us what has now happened to the price mechanism of which his party was once so fond?

I was asked about the price of tea, and I have replied on the price of tea. The fact is that, two months after de-control, the price was lower than on the day of de-control.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour, in the Cost of Living Index, states that the cost of 21 brands of tea has gone up by 16 per cent.?

My right hon. Friend stated the figures as between January, 1953, and January, 1952, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the subsidy on tea of 8d. per lb. was removed in June last year.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Food whether as the trend towards increased fresh milk consumption has now been reversed and as less fresh milk was consumed in 1952 than in 1951 and 1950, he will now reduce the price of milk to promote greater consumption.

No, Sir.

Could the hon. Gentleman say why he regards as satisfactory the consumption of milk, since it has now been reduced below the consumption of the past two years, in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when in Opposition, said that he regarded milk consumption as the cardinal point of our food policy?

The fall in the consumption of liquid milk in the country last year, as compared with the year before, was 1.6 per cent., and all such milk found its way into manufacture and thus to consumption. My right hon. and gallant Friend is not prepared to increase the subsidy on milk, which already stands at approximately £90 million.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now relax and simplify the regulations governing rearing, fattening and slaughter of backyard pigs for owner consumption.

I am glad to say that we can now simplify the scheme. From 1st March, registration will no longer be required, and a licence to slaughter will be issued on a simple declaration that the pig has been kept under the appropriate conditions for two months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that large numbers of pigs and sows, as well as their owners, will welcome this statement, and, in view of the very important appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the National Farmers' Union dinner last week to wring every additional ton of food from our soil, will my hon. Friend make haste to remove the remainder of these controls at the earliest possible moment?

asked the Minister of Food the date on which the sale and manufacture of cream will be permitted.

My right hon. and gallant Friend hopes to make an announcement on Wednesday next.

asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for the Inter-Departmental Committee, which is to consider the siting and design of slaughterhouses, to take into account the desirability of providing cold storage for some of the heavy supplies of home-killed meat at the end of the grazing season.

Experiments in the freezing of home-killed meat are continuing, coupled with investigation into the nature and extent of the facilities required in the special conditions of this country. Such technical problems which have first to be solved cannot appropriately be considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee.

While the problem of cold storage may not be an appropriate one for this Committee, will the Minister see that a proper inquiry is made into the economy of cold storing some of our home killed meat in view of the fact that we have today very heavy peaks and troughs of supply?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Food (1) whether, following his decision to end the price control of sausages, he will discontinue the payment of the subsidy in respect of meat supplied to butchers for manufacturing;

The butchers will not benefit by the subsidy on meat used in sausages. The rebates or surcharges on butchers' wholesale purchase of meat will be adjusted in the light of the periodical costings investigations. Butchers' profits from manufacturing sausages are taken into account in these investigations. There is no subsidy on manufacturing meat supplied to manufacturers.

That seems to be a rather evasive reply. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say on what estimate it is now proposed to withdraw the supplies of manufactured meat which are subject to subsidy?

Today, as in the time of the right hon. Gentleman, there are periodical costings investigations which cover the whole of the butchers' income from all sources including, for example, sausages. Such an investigation will take place, and if it reveals recoupment above the fixed level a corresponding change will be made in the rebate.

Does that mean that the price of the sausage will be increased to the consumer and that the butcher will still get subsidies from the Exchequer?

The price of the sausage will be determined by competition.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend a general amnesty to war-time deserters in connection with the Coronation celebrations.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now reconsider the question of an amnesty for deserters.

Her Majesty's Government have decided that, in the circumstances referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and as a special measure which will not be regarded as a precedent for the future, there will be no further prosecutions of members of the Armed Forces who deserted from the Services between 3rd September, 1939, and 15th August, 1945. Men who wish to take advantage of the amnesty will be required to report themselves in writing to a Service authority. They will then receive a protection certificate and will be transferred to the appropriate Reserve to which men were transferred on demobilisation. Men who claim the benefit of the amnesty will not be prosecuted for certain offences consequential upon desertion, such as subsequent fraudulent enlistment, or the possession of identity documents in a false name, but the amnesty will not cover other offences against the criminal law.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that though this generous decision will, I suppose, be welcomed with mixed feelings throughout the country, it will, at the same time, restore thousands of men once again to family and community life and thereby, perhaps, give them an opportunity to justify this clemency?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while his statement today—which is much more satisfactory than the answer he gave me on 29th January, 1952—will require a little study, it will be appreciated by all those who have long felt that this eight-year old man hunt should have come to an end long since?

Can my right hon. Friend say to how many men it is estimated that this amnesty will apply? His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War stated the other day that there were 10,000 deserters. Is it a fact that the numbers involved under this proposed act of clemency will be in the neighbourhood of only 2,000 to 3,000?

I should like notice of questions of detail.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of road accidents in which no mechanical vehicle was involved, for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, respectively; and what was the corresponding figure for 1938.

I regret that statistics are not available to provide a complete answer. Accidents involving pedal cycles but no other vehicle totalled 17,276 in 1949 and 17,207 in 1951; I cannot give similar figures for 1938. In addition, there were some other accidents not involving mechanically propelled vehicles which have not been separately analysed, for example those involving horses and horse-drawn vehicles, but these were relatively few.

In view of the fact that in 1938 figures were available for accidents involving non-mechanically propelled vehicles—I believe about 10 per cent. of the accidents were caused by such vehicles—and in view of the increased number of accidents on the road, could my hon. Friend get these figures made more readily available?

The statistics for 1938 were not analysed in sufficient detail to enable the information requested for that year to be given.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of compulsory third-party insurance for non-mechanically propelled vehicles?

I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport to give a list of the road work being carried on at the present time under the Crofter Counties Scheme.

The following works are in progress: The reconstruction of the bridges at Strathan, Strathkanaird and Drumrunie on the Ullapool-Drumrunie Road; the improvement of about five miles of the Tarbert-Rodel Road, north of Rodel; and the improvement of the Portree-Staffin road.

Could not the Minister see that this scheme was restarted? It was a completely false economy to cut this Crofter Counties Scheme, and the Government are ill-advised to follow the misapplied cuts that were made by the previous administration.

The works included in my reply represent a total cost of £121,886. About 50 per cent. of this scheme has been completed, and to carry out the remainder would cost between £8 million and £9 million, for which funds are not at present available.

Does the Minister realise that skilled road men have been paid off in the Highland counties in the last few weeks while essential repairs to dangerous roads remain undone?

I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Minister of Transport how many workmen employed by the British Transport Commission have been killed within the most recent ascertainable 12 months whilst working on the permanent way; and what additional steps have been taken to reduce the number of these accidents.

During the 12 months to 31st December, 1951, my right hon. Friend has received reports of 46 fatalities to railway servants who were struck by engines or trains while working on the permanent way, compared with the average of 59 for the five years 1946–50. The final figure for 1952 is not yet available, but it will be about 60. The majority of these regrettable accidents are caused by want of individual care and disregard of simple safety rules, and prevention is largely a matter of discipline. Inquiries are held by the Railway Employment Inspectors into all the fatalities and injuries reported, and their recommendations invariably receive the close attention of the railway authorities. Educative measures include the wide circulation of the reports among the staff.

Would not the Minister agree that to have 60 people killed like this in one year is a deplorably high figure? Is he aware that a number of people think that the British Transport Commission are rather complacent about this? Would he see whether anything more can be done to provide distinctive clothing or colouring to men working on the permanent ways so that drivers may have a better chance of picking them out?

I will pass that suggestion on to the Commission.

Would the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Railway Executive that instead of its being the responsibility of the ganger to appoint a look-out man from among those working on the track it should be the responsibility of the management to provide a look-out man to give protection to these men on every occasion?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that suggestion has been considered time after time over a considerable number of years, and the general feeling is that if a look-out man were on duty as a matter of routine he would be less alert than if he were appointed to guard against a particular danger. It is important that those who work on the lines should also remember their individual responsibility for looking out for danger.

Would the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made to find out how many men were killed on occasions when there was a look-out and how many when there was not a look-out? Is he aware that if he does he will prove that his argument is wrong?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.