asked the Minister of Food what answer he has given to the Buckinghamshire National Farmers Union in reply to their request for the release of potato stocks for animal feeding; and in which other counties such surpluses are prevalent.

No such request has reached my Department or the Ministry of Agriculture, but surplus potatoes bought in all parts of the country by my Department are already being sold for stock feeding.

Will my hon. Friend look further into this, and will the Ministry of Food make sure that these stocks of potatoes, which are valuable raw materials for feedingstuffs, are freely available in the future to farmers and to those firms which process them into animal feedingstuff?

The sale of potatoes for stock feeding cannot be begun until it is ascertained that there are sufficient supplies for human consumption. The sale has now begun.

asked the Minister of Food when he decided to increase the meat ration from 1s. 9d. to 2s.; and why he made this announcement to the annual conference of Conservative women instead of to this House.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) on 4th May, 1953.

I have seen that answer and, in view of the fact that it does not answer the point in the Question, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why, when the Minister was answering Questions in the House last Monday and last Wednesday, he did not take the opportunity of making this announcement on either of those days rather than making it to a women's conference?

The announcement was made at the conference in question at the same time as it was made to the Press. There are ample precedents for that, particulars of which I should be glad to supply to the hon. Member.

But does the Minister not appreciate that the Minister was answering Questions both on Monday and on Wednesday, and surely in courtesy to the House he could have taken the opportunity of giving the House the information before deciding to give it to an outside body?

My right hon. and gallant Friend answered the Questions that were put down to him on Monday. He announced this change to the Press and at the same time, or just afterwards, he made the announcement to another body.

Is it not obvious that this was a sop offered to Conservative women in order to allay their discontent with the Government?

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) announced to a political meeting on 27th April, 1951, that the sweet ration was to be increased and did not issue the Press notice until 15th May.

How is it possible for the hon. Member to show such intelligent anticipation of the Question I put by having it prepared in his brief?

I think the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts and ours run on similar lines.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the general public are not in the least interested where the announcement was made, but there will be unanimous approval of the fact that their meat ration is to be maintained at a uniform 2s. worth for the remainder of this year?

asked the Minister of Food the reasons for the increase of price of corned beef from 3s. to 4s. per 1b; and why this announcement of 1s. per 1b. increase was not made to the House.

This canned meat is being released for sale off the ration and in such circumstances I see no reason for subsidy. It has never been the practice to announce all such changes in the House.

Are we to take it now that when this distribution is made through the retailers, in addition to the butchers, those who have got more money will be able to afford as much corned beef as they want?

Corned beef is now being distributed outside the ration. When within the ration it was subsidised, but it is not to be subsidised outside the ration. There is no good reason for subsidising this form of canned meat in competition with other forms of canned meat which are selling unrationed and unsubsidised today.

Is the corned meat going to be more edible than the ration of fresh meat which is now being distributed?

I have no doubt that the corned beef will be widely welcomed by people in this country.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Grade A eggs have risen to 5s. 3d. per dozen since derationing and decontrol; and whether, since this is the highest price that eggs have ever been at this time of the year, he will reintroduce price control.

At Easter eggs were a little cheaper than when they were subsidised, and now they are a little dearer. Freedom has brought them into the shops in good quantity, and I see no reason for thinking price control would make them cheaper than they are.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that when his right hon. and gallant Friend made his announcement about decontrolling the price of eggs and their derationing he promised that there would not be any increase—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—no appreciable increase —and is this not in fact the season when eggs are, in accordance with the Minister's own statement, not in short supply? Can he explain why there should be an increase to a higher price than ever before at this time of the year?

My right hon. and gallant Friend did not anticipate the course of egg prices. Certain other right hon. Gentlemen did and their prophecies have been falsified. In any case, the price of eggs fell soon after decontrol despite the elimination of the subsidy, and the price is now only slightly higher than a year ago despite the elimination of the subsidy.

Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that what he means is the more freedom we get the higher the prices?

No, it means that in this case there was a black market which has been killed by a free market, with greater abundance of eggs.

Are we to take it that the Minister's answer means that the Government have only to kill a black market to make the price so high that the ordinary people cannot afford to buy the eggs?

By the operation of a free market we have already seen a greater abundance of eggs in the shops than for many years.

asked the Minister of Food what orders have been placed by his Department for the import of eggs since 26th March last.

Since 25th March we have contracted with Poland for 65 million eggs, and have made agreements with Australia, South Africa and the Irish Republic for the import of as many eggs as they can make available during the rest of the year. All this is, of course, in addition to our earlier contract with Denmark.

In view of the fact that the wholesale price of English Grade I eggs has gone up by 4s. a long 100 since 18th April last, will the Minister give his assurance that he will continue the policy of bulk purchase of foreign eggs and so avoid the possibility of a 9d. or 10d. egg being sold in this country before the year is out?

One can give no assurance as to the method which will be followed, but the import of eggs which we need and which we can afford will be continued.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that a bottle of Scotch whisky now sells for 6 dollars compared with 3.29 dollars in 1939 whereas the export price has only risen from 75 cents to 1 dollar a bottle; and if he will take steps to prohibit the use of imported barley for whisky production in view of this disproportionate increase.

I am looking into the facts and will communicate with the right hon. Member.

Yes, but I wanted an answer now. Is the Minister aware that last year something of the order of 88,000 tons of barley were used for the distillation of whisky, and if any barley had to be imported which today cost £22 a ton and the equivalent of £2 million, does he not think, in view of the very low export price of whisky, that barley supplies for whisky distillers should be restricted?

No imported barley has been used for making whisky, but clearly distilling has a bearing on barley consumption. On the right hon. Gentleman's general statement, may I say that at first sight it would seem to be most unlikely that an industry would refrain from collecting profits which could be obtained from the sale of its goods in an overseas market. The right hon. Gentleman has made certain suggestions. I have agreed rigorously to examine those suggestions, and I would ask him to hold or to rest this particular horse until that examination is complete.

But while recognising, as I do, that imported barley is not used for whisky distillation, surely the Minister will agree that if any barley at all is used for whisky distillation, barley has to be imported to take its place for other uses here?

Yes, but to do what is suggested in the second part of the Question, to prohibit the use of imported barley for whisky production, would have no effect at all, for none is used.

Would the hon. Gentleman, in the examinations he has promised to make, take into account the fact that the waste of good English barley in the manufacture of something not necessary in this country is not to be justified even on the basis of poisoning unworthy Americans on the cheap?

The views of the hon. Gentleman are well known, but, whatever his views about the consumption of whisky may be, I would remind him that it is the biggest single dollar earner in the United States of America.

Is there any ground for supposing that the whisky distillers— I am not a whisky distiller, by the way —refrain either in the private or public interest, from getting the biggest price possible for their export? Is it not likely also that the whisky distillers know more about it than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)?

Before the Minister replies to the question, will he at the same time explain to his hon. Friend why it is that although all our imports cost three or more times as much as they did before the war and practically all our exports, especially to America, cost 2½ times as much, whisky has gone up by only 33⅓ per cent., which is one-third? Surely there is something cuckoo about it?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I know of no ground for the suspicion that the export price is kept artificially low. The right hon. Gentleman has pressed his point with such vigour and sincerity, however, that I have said we will examine it as carefully as we can, and I await any contribution as to the facts from the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Food how much barley was used in the process of whisky production in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

About 275,000 tons during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952.

Yes, but perhaps the Minister will now reflect on this. Also will he call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the cost of this imported grain is nearly four times as much as it was pre-war, and if it takes the place of material which is used for the purpose of distilling Scottish whisky at only a one-third increase in the export price, surely it is an uneconomic export, and will he therefore also call the attention of the Chancellor to that fact?

In view of what has been said today, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow this allegation of his to be substantiated or to be denied and to leave it alone in the meantime. I would also ask him not to mistake his vigour of expression for accuracy of allegation.

In view of that challenge, may I ask the Minister whether he is capable of contradicting any one of the figures which I have given him?

The right hon. Gentleman has offered to supply me with certain facts about this matter. I have not yet received them—other than, of course, those facts which have been deployed in his various Questions.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will stir up his Department, because they were sent to him five days ago?

The Department does not need stirring up. What the right hon. Gentleman needs to do is to collect some facts in support of his allegation and to refrain from continuing to make it without supporting it by facts.

I shall go on. The whole thing is a complete swindle.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made by the Committee set up to consider how to remedy the pollution of our beaches and coastline by oil; and if he will impress upon them the need for an early report.

I am glad to say that the Committee have made considerable progress in their consideration of this difficult problem. They are most anxious to submit a report as soon as they can and are doing everything possible to that end.

Can the Minister give an idea of the date?

No, I cannot bind the Committee, but I have had a recent talk with the chairman and I know they understand the importance of getting the report out if possible before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

What representations has the Minister had from the authorities of seaside resorts into the pollution of beaches. Is he aware of the great anxiety that exists there, particularly at the beginning of the summer season?

I do not think we need any more representations from the victims. What we need is an answer to the problem.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that existing regulations for the construction of passenger ships provide for adequate precautions against fire; and whether he will take steps to require greater use of incombustible materials in their construction.

The existing rules which prescribe the structural precautions to be taken against fire in passenger ships give effect to the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, which come into operation on 19th of November last. The Rules require a very high degree of protection against fire, and I am satisfied that it is not necessary to require any greater use of incombustible materials in the construction of British ships than is required by these Rules.

Is it not a fact that British ships rely largely in the sprinkler system, which can suffer from defects and damage and be switched off or drained down for repair at a time when it may be needed? Would my right hon. Friend say whether the sprinkler system fitted in the Danish ship the "Kronprins Frederik" was in fact satisfactory?

I would hestitate to answer about an individual case. This is one of three methods prescribed by the International Convention, and I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that one of the most disastrous of all ship fires took place in a ship ostensibly constructed of incombustible material.

Will my right hon. Friend consult a committee of the Shipping Council and the Shipbuilders Association in regard to any improvements to the last Convention in regard to this matter, if recent evidence indicates that reforms are necessary?

Both those important bodies know how to get into touch with me but, if they do not, I will get into touch with them.

Has the Minister received the report of the inquiry into the burning out of the "Empress of Canada"?

Not yet, but as the hon. Gentleman knows the "Empress of Canada," being an old ship, was not fitted with sprinklers, so it does not really arise on this point.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement upon the recent disaster which befell the British Railways ferry steamer "Duke of York."

Yes, Sir. As hon. Members will know, the British Railways passenger steamer "Duke of York" coming on her usual voyage from the Hook of Holland to Harwich last Wednesday morning, came into collision with the United States steamer "Haiti Victory" about 40 miles off Harwich. The "Duke of York" was carrying 437 passengers and a crew of 72 and, in spite of the remarkable success of the rescue arrangements, I regret to say that five passengers lost their lives. Two more have still to be accounted for. The House will, I am sure, wish me to express its deep sympathy with the relatives of these passengers. A preliminary inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts has been ordered and we are in touch with the United States authorities with a view to securing that the fullest information shall be available.

The Minister will have the support of the whole House in his expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. May I ask if he is aware there will be much concern that there has been two recent disasters to British Railways passenger vessels, particularly in view of the availability of the latest electronic communication equipment? In view of the common features of these two disasters, will the Minister consider instituting an inquiry into the whole field of the use of modern communications for safety of life at sea?

I cannot understand how my hon. Friend regards these disasters as having common features. One, which led to appalling loss of life, was due to the wild seas. The other was a collision with a ship owned by the Government of a friendly Power, and I would deprecate any quick decision now as to where lies the responsibility in the second case. I have announced that there is to be a preliminary inquiry, and I would remind my hon. Friend that for a long time there was sitting an International Conference on safety at sea. I consider that any further international discussion would not be the answer.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that in spite of this International Conference there have been a large number or, at least, quite a number of collisions at sea, in spite of the use of the latest electronic equipment. Would he at least consider the importance of looking further into the matter of the use of electronic equipment for the safety of life at sea?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a speed limit in Eton Wick Road, which has a narrow pavement round a dangerous bend and is traversed by a large number of school children.

Eton Wick Road is already subject to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit.

asked the Minister of Transport the names of the highway authorities whose classification grant has been reduced in 1953–54 as compared with 1952–53; and the amount of money saved by these cuts.

I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), on 21st April, of which I am sending him a copy. The total provision for classification grants in 1953–54 is £344,994 less than the total of grants made for 1952–53.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am in possession of the information conveyed in the answer to the first part of the Question? Is he aware that with the greatly changed nature of traffic to heavier units it necessarily follows that there is harder wear and tear on the highways and that something ought to be done to make good the roads affected?

My right hon. Friend has this constantly in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a report on the condition of the main highways throughout the country.

My right hon. Friend does not consider that he can very usefully attempt to issue a general report on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by the many forms of taxation to which we are subjected in this country, Purchase Tax, Road Fund, petrol tax and so on, approximately £370 million is passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he think we are receiving adequate service in the highways as £80 million has been spent to keep our roadways open?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of all those things. The Question asked whether a report could be prepared on this matter. Since the responsibility for roads is shared by 1,300 different highway authorities, which would be called upon to supply information, we do not propose to lay that burden on their officials.

In view of the fact that a number of allegations are made by highway engineers and others that the standard of our roads is deteriorating, would it not be a good idea to have an expression of opinion by the Minister's chief engineer of whether those allegations are correct or not?

We are responsible for 8,000 miles of trunk roads upon which we receive reports, but they are not of the same value as the whole picture and we are not prepared to ask 1,300 authorities for this information.

That is not what I am asking; I am asking whether it is the view of the Minister that the condition of our roads is deteriorating or not, because the charge is being made that their condition is steadily going down?

I think that, generally speaking, maintenance is very adequately achieved.

It would not be necessary to apply to all highway authorities; do not the Ministry's road engineers have the information, and could not they give reports?

They are constantly doing so.

asked the Minister of Transport the total amount of money that is to be expended in the financial year of 1953 on the main highways in Great Britain; and how this amount compares with the amount granted in 1938.

I cannot give strictly comparable figures because the scope and rates of Road Fund grants have altered considerably since 1938. Payments from the Road Fund in the current financial year for work on trunk and classified roads are estimated at £32 million. In 1938–39 payments from the Road Fund for work on roads then in receipt of grant were £19,612,000.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that tremendous tonnages of heavy materials are being transported to central depots in the country, especially in a county like Durham—where I live—where the roads are greatly affected by mining subsidence? Is it not vital that industries of national importance, which are depending greatly upon the upkeep of the roads, should be assured that the deterioration of the roads shall not continue any further?

The hon. Member asked for comparable figures. I have explained why they cannot be supplied. We have in mind the points he has raised.

Is not the hon. Gentleman inclined to be a little evasive on this matter? Would he inform the House— as I think hon. Members wish to know —why it is that his Department have decided to cut the classification grant without ascertaining what is the actual condition of the main highways of the country?

The right hon. Member will bear in mind that the Question on the Order Paper asks for a comparison with 1938, since when a number of unclassified roads have become classified and a number of classified roads have become trunked. Should the right hon. Member require further information I shall be glad to answer a question if he will put it down.

Will my hon. Friend say whether it has been agreed that out of the money to be allocated this year part shall be spent on a by-pass road for Staines?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the reduction of grant to Durham County Council for trunk roads by some 23.4 per cent. and for classified roads by some 7.9 per cent. over the figures for 1952–53, in spite of rising costs, will impair the capacity of this authority to maintain their roads in first-class condition, and transport efficiency in this county; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.

We have done our best to allocate to Durham, as to each other area in the country, its fair share of the reduced amount of money generally available for road maintenance in the current financial year. The reduction in the allocation to the county council as our agent authority for trunk roads is considerably less than the hon. Member suggests, allowing for an addition to the basic allocation which was made last year to meet a special requirement.

Does the hon. Member agree that the percentage reduction which I have quoted in my Question is precisely the reduction on the figure paid to Durham for the preceding year? The fact that an additional figure had to be paid in order to get the work done is a reflection on the hon. Member's Department. Is he aware that this county has 63 miles of trunk road within it and that it is the opinion of the experts in Durham that these roads cannot be kept in good condition at this figure?

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so. With regard to the trunk roads, the allocation for 1952–53 included a special grant for improving the bad condition of the Birtley by-pass, which cost £15,000, so that comparison should be between £100,000 for 1952–53 and £88,000 for 1953–54, making a reduction of 12 per cent.; not 23 per cent. as the hon. Member said in the Question.

Apart from the figures relating to this matter, will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it will be quite impossible for Durham County Council, the highway authority, to maintain the roads in Durham in good condition, much less first class condition, in view of this reduction in the grant?

No, Sir.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that 400 houses in Ferrybridge are separated from their nearest shops by the Great North Road; and whether he will authorise the establishment of a pedestrian crossing near Ferrybridge school.

We have considered this very carefully, paying full regard to the layout of the place, the volume of traffic and the needs of pedestrians, but do not consider that a crossing would be justified.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that theory is in direct conflict with the unanimous view of the local road safety committee and of the local council? In view of the fact that on Saturday the local council was reinforced by four Labour gains, is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is likely to receive stronger representations on this matter than in the past?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, he will know that we have always taken the view, which was also taken by our predecessors, that the safety of school children is best safeguarded by the provision of adult patrols. I am glad to inform the hon. Member that Socialist gains have not been accompanied by loss of life.

This Question refers not merely to the safeguarding of crossings for children, but also for people who live on one side of the road and have to shop on the other side.

We have had this spot carefully watched by the divisional road engineer and we do not think any change is necessary.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a further statement regarding the new road through Durham; and

Meetings between officers of my Department and representatives of Durham City Council led to the conclusion that additional information was required before a firm decision could be taken on the line to be followed by the proposed new road through Durham. A meeting is to be held in Durham shortly between representatives of the county and city councils, with officers from my Ministry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government present, to arrange for this information to be obtained.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question of a new road through Durham has been talked about for the past 50 years and that they are no nearer a solution of the problem? Is he aware of the dangerous situation in Durham with extensive traffic travelling through the city and that it is a nightmare to walk down the streets, especially at week-ends? Will he realise the importance of this and try to speed up the whole matter?

I am aware that there is a considerable conflict of opinion on this matter between Durham County Council and Durham City Council, and I am therefore anxious to do nothing to prejudice the success of the forthcoming meeting.

asked the Minister of Transport what assistance is being given by his Department to the London County Council for the improvement and widening of Roehampton Lane, having regard to the rapid progress which is being made with new and large housing estates in Roehampton with the consequent increasing danger of accidents on the present narrow and winding road.

We appreciate the desirability of widening and improving this road but, while funds available for road improvement remain so restricted, my right hon. Friend is unable to make a grant to the London County Council for this scheme.

Does that mean that if representations are made to my hon. Friend in the course of the next year there is a probability of money being available then?

My right hon. Friend is always only too pleased to receive representations.

Is not the hon. Gentleman treating London County Council in this respect less favourably than most other local authorities?

If that is so the situation is retrospective.

Would it not be more useful for the Department to extend the grant for this road improvement than to permit, as is being done now, a lot of fancy islands, which do not have much relevance to the traffic problem, being constructed all over London?

I think they are also of value.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of prosecutions under Section 17 of the Road and Rail Act, 1933, during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1952 and 31st March, 1953, respectively; and how many of these, each year, were on account of vehicles owned by the British Transport Commission.

Figures are not available for the 12 months ended 31st March. Prosecutions under Section 17 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1951, totalled 82, and during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952, totalled 67. None of these prosecutions related to vehicles owned by the British Transport Commission.

In view of the statement of the Minister regarding violations of Sections 16 and 19 of the 1933 Act, does he not realise how foolish his denationalisation proposals are? Here he is setting a serious example of increasing the danger on the roads instead of reducing it; does he not realise how foolish that is?

I hope the hon. Member realises that Section 17 relates to one important—but definitely only one— aspect of this problem and that he also realises that 900,000 vehicles are in private hands and only 55,000 in the hands of the Commission.

asked the Minister of Transport if, before making his appointments to the Road Haulage Disposal Board, he will inquire whether Mr. James Barrie, of Glasgow, who is one of the two nominees put forward by the Road Haulage Association, has also been nominated by them as a director of Transport Unit Finance, a company set up by the United Dominions Trust to lend money to buyers of the lorries.

Before making any appointments of this kind, I inquire into the interests of the persons whose names are before me.

May I take it that the Minister will not appoint anyone who is interested in buying the lorries and who is nominated for that job by the Road Haulage Association?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until I announce whom I have decided to appoint.

Should not the Minister give us an assurance that no one will be put in the position of selling lorries on the one hand and buying them on the other? That is what we call a "bucket shop."

I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's classification of this particular point. I think it highly regrettable that we should descend to personalities of this kind— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—whichever party may form the Government. What we want is to appoint the best possible people available, and not to subject them to ungenerous criticism.

On a matter of principle, may we have an assurance from the Minister that he will not allow the vital question of Scottish transport to become the plaything of financial rackets?

Will not the Minister give an assurance on the principle—there is no question of personalities; it is a question of principle—that a man who is nominated as the director of a company formed for the purpose of financing the purchase of lorries should not also be put in a position where he is engaged in disposing of them?

The hon. Gentleman will find the question of principle dealt with in Section 2 (7) of the Act, which was fully debated in the House.

May I ask if that means that the Minister will not appoint under Section 2 (7) a member of the Road Haulage Association, as he is not required to do so?

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise that he should make an appointment in the case where someone could, at one and the same time, dispose of the lorries and buy them? Does he think that wise?

Had the right hon. Gentleman found it possible to attend the debates he would have heard a full discussion on this when the Clause was being discussed.

Attendance at the Transport Bill debates does not preclude asking questions in this House, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree. All I wish to know, and I repeat the question, is whether he thinks it wise and in the public interest, or would it not create some public concern, to appoint someone to dispose of lorries who can, at the same time, buy them?

I certainly do not accept that the appointment to this particular Board necessarily constitutes a bar to the appointment of that particular gentleman. The general question of principle was debated at length in this House during the 20 days we spent on the Transport Bill, and I am not prepared to make observations of a kind peculiar to a particular gentleman—who happens incidentally to be a fellow Scot—like this, by question and answer.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give a straight answer? There is no question whatever of personalities. It is only a question of whether it is right to put a person in a position of trust, where on the one hand he is interested in selling on behalf of the Government, and at the same time in buying on behalf of another organisation. Surely that is a question of principle? It may be in the Bill but cannot the right hon. Gentleman say yes or no?

If the issue were as the right hon. Gentleman has put it, of course there would be no question which way the answer lay—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which way?"]. It would clearly be wrong for a person to be interested in a particular sale, or series of sales, and also to sit on the Disposal Board. Had the right hon. Gentleman followed the long debates we had on this matter he would know the Government's position is perfectly plain. What I refuse to do now is to say in one way or the other whether the appointment on a particular board constitutes a bar in this particular case.

Does not the Minister understand that the House is concerned that this gentleman will be on a Trust which will become interested in the purchase of a large number of vehicles and that it will not be disclosed during the sale and purchase whether the United Dominions Trust and its subsidiaries are actually to finance the purchase? Therefore, is not the correct principle to refuse to have on the Board anyone who will be associated with the financing of the purchasing of the vehicles?

Answer.

Order. That seems to be the same question as has been asked several times already.

In view of the highly unsatisfactory and evasive nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who has Question No. 49 on the Order Paper, entitled to put it as a supplementary question on this Question?

We shall see when we get to Question No. 49.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has invited the Road Haulage Association to submit nominations for appointment to the Road Haulage Disposal Board; and when such invitation was made, and what has been the response.

On 23rd March I invited the Road Haulage Association to submit nominations to me, and on 2nd April I received from them the names of their nominees.

Since the Bill did not receive the Royal Assent until 6th May, why did the Minister invite his nominations at such an early date? Will he tell us who were the nominees of the Road Haulage Association and will he confirm whether Mr. Barrie was one of those nominees? Why did he invite this body, the Road Haulage Association, which is partisan and prejudiced and concerned not only in the purchase of the vehicles but also, through its nominee, in financing the purchase?

rose—

This matter is to be raised on the Adjournment. Notice has been given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

On a point of order. May I submit that the question which I wish to raise on the Adjournment is not the Question which my hon. Friend is asking. It is whether the Minister has invited nominees. The question I shall raise is whether the Road Haulage Association should have any nominees on this Board at all, which is an entirely different matter.

They seem to me to be related. If the Minister has any answer he would like to give, I do not object, but we cannot carry it far.

I am quite prepared to say that it obviously appears appropriate that the Road Haulage Association should be consulted in regard to suggestions about who might be thought to have experience as A and B licence holders. Despite the great difficulties in which they have been placed as a result of the Socialist Act of 1947, they have kept very good control and knowledge of their members. I asked them in advance because it appeared to be a good thing to plan in advance. If hon. Members opposite had done it, we should be in a better national position.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee of Inquiry into London Transport will invite evidence to be submitted to it; if such evidence will be published; and whether its report will be laid before Parliament and published.

As I have already indicated to the House, the way in which the Committee conduct their inquiry should, in my view, be left to the discretion of the Chairman, but experience has shown that the most useful results are obtained when the proceedings of such Committees are conducted in private. The Committee's report will, however, be laid before Parliament.

The House will probably agree that in this case it may be better for the hearings to be held in private. But will the Minister leave it to the discretion of the Committee to publish the evidence received if they consider it in the national interest to do so, as was done in the case of the B.B.C. inquiry?

Certainly.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how many waiters and waitresses are currently employed by the Kitchen Committee; how many of these have been in continuous employment for more than 12 months and five years, respectively; and how many are in pensionable employment.

Forty-seven waiters and waitresses are currently employed by the Kitchen Committee. Thirty-one have been in continuous employment for more than 12 months, 27 for more than five years. Twenty-five are in pensionable employment.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what is the number of hours per week worked by members of the kitchen and dining room staff.

When the House is sitting, the number of hours worked by the kitchen and waiting staff during a normal working week is 46½ and 39, respectively. On occasions, when Members entertain guests on a Friday and/or a Saturday night, the number is increased accordingly but usually does not exceed 50 and 46, respectively, for which additional remuneration is paid.

May I ask the hon. Member, for whose own voluntary work and the work of his Committee many of us have great appreciation, whether he is aware that when some of the permanent staff have tea duty they can be on duty from half-past ten in the morning until ten at night? Will he tell us what guaranteed break they get and at what stage in the hours he mentioned they begin to be paid overtime rates?

That is not on the Order Paper, but I will say this: the Kitchen Committee have appointed a staff subcommittee to examine the general conditions of employment of the staff in the refreshment room, including their hours of work, pay, etc. This sub-committee held its third meeting a week last Wednesday and will be holding its fourth a week next Wednesday, 20th May. The point raised by the hon. Member will be fully discussed.

Why is it that so few of the members of the kitchen and dining staff are pensionable? The hon. Member said it was 25 out of quite a large number. We came to the conclusion in the previous Parliament but one that they should be pensionable if they were employed by the Kitchen Committee.

Out of a total of 47, 33 are full-time and 14 part-time. The eight full-time staff who are not pensionable include two who have not yet completed one year's service, while the others were not eligible at the time the scheme was introduced as they were over age.

asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what is the number of days per week on which members of the kitchen and dining room staff are called upon for duty.

The kitchen and waiting staff work on 4½ days per week, Monday to Friday afternoon. On occasions when parties are given by Members, the staff are asked to work either the Friday evening or Saturday evening, or sometimes both, when necessary, extra remuneration being paid for such services.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the remuneration which the staff get for work on Saturdays is merely the gratuity paid to them by whoever arranges the entertainment and that on occasions he is asking them to work a six-day week? Does he not think that the House of Commons ought to be a model employer to the staff? Will he look into the dissatisfaction which exists among people who have served the House of Commons very well indeed?

I think the House of Commons is a model employer. The staff do not work a six-day week; they work four-and-a-half days or plus one evening or plus a second evening. It is never six full days. In any event, they are paid well above the rates of the Catering Wages Act and in addition receive extra remuneration for such work.

While I express no opinion on the merits of the point raised by my hon. Friend, is the hon. Member not aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House would be better satisfied if matters relating to wages and conditions of servants of the House were regulated through the normal trade union machinery and not on the Floor of the House?

In view of the suggestions that the staff are badly treated, could my hon. Friend say whether there is any difficulty in recruiting members to this staff?

The management has great difficulty in recruiting members to the staff of the Refreshment Department for the simple reason that the demand for work which does not include tips is not very plentiful.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) what steps he took during 1952–53 to secure co-operation between allied countries in research on the problem of the abatement of noise of aircraft engines;

The Ministry of Supply has maintained close contact with the authorities concerned with this problem in the United States and France; and valuable information has been exchanged. During 1952–53 the Ministry of Supply spent about £40,000 upon this problem. The work comprised general research, special studies of the causes of engine noise and experiments with devices for reducing the sound of jet and exhaust pipes.

Does the Minister think that an expenditure of £40,000 is sufficient in view of the urgency of this problem, and would he not agree that this matter of the noise of aircraft engines is probably one of the most important factors in the development of aviation? Will he give the impression that he is treating this matter with some urgency?

I am well aware both of the urgency and the importance of this matter. This is not the only money that is being spent. Work is also being done by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and by the universities. However, I would point out to the hon. Member, who is probably well aware of it already, that this is a most intractable scientific problem. The development of more powerful, and, in consequence, more noisy jet engines is likely, in my opinion, to go ahead more quickly than the invention of means of suppressing the noise. As for the problem of the supersonic bang, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no solution in sight. In fact, we are probably in for some rather noisy times.