asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to improving and strengthening Anglo-Soviet relationship, he will make proposals to the Soviet Government for an interchange of parliamentary delegations between the two countries.

As the hon. Member is aware, I am prepared to keep this suggestion under review. But I do not consider that this is necessarily the best moment for any such initiative from our side.

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for that very warm and sympathetic answer? Will he state when he feels the situation warrants a further Question being put on the Order Paper giving him an opportunity to put this suggestion into practice?

Yes, Sir; but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the elections to the Supreme Soviet took place yesterday. I do not think it would be proper for me to anticipate the result.

When does my right hon. Friend think the appropriate moment will arise for a visit of the Russian parliamentary delegation?

My answer was comprehensive.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an invitation from the Supreme Soviet of Russia since they came here in 1947 at our invitation?

No, Sir. It has been left to us to do the inviting.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the further recrudescence of Nazism, as recently demonstrated by the decision of the German authorities to rebury in the hallowed ground of a Lower Saxony municipal cemetery 91 Nazi war criminals, including Joseph Kramer and Irma Grese, found guilty of crimes against humanity, and executed after a full and fair trial by a British court for murder.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the growth of neo-Nazism and militarism in Germany, which is fostered by acts such as the exhumation and re-burial of German war criminals and their representation in the German Press as a new myth of martyrdom; and what steps he will take with the German authorities to stop this forthwith.

Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the action of the Lower Saxony Land Government in transferring these bodies to a mass public grave. This did not require British permission, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Whatever the explanation may be, is the Foreign Secretary not aware that this action has caused angry protests, and that there is widespread concern at this action, which is contrary to all the official German professions of having repudiated Hitlerism and Nazism? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as an occupying Power, we ought to protest at this action?

I do not read what the hon. Gentleman does into this event, and I feel more sympathy with the letter which Mr. Victor Gollancz wrote to "The Times." What has actually happened is that the relatives who were anxious to visit the graves could not do so except by visiting the prison, and they asked that the bodies should be removed to some other place where they could visit them and where they were all once more put into a mass grave. I do not think that is a matter about which Her Majesty's Government should protest.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these people were found guilty of the most terrible crimes, that there was unspeakable sadism in their actions prior to the time that they committed the murders of hundreds of thousands of people? Is he really suggesting that a similar thing could happen anywhere else in the world and that if criminals of that nature had been buried within prison grounds they would be exhumed and reburied elsewhere? Will the right hon. Gentleman please make a protest, as so many people are anxious to ensure that this kind of thing does not create in Germany the idea that these acts are tolerated by any other human beings?

I am certainly not prepared to make a protest about this. I think this was done decently and without provocation. There was no demonstration or anything of the kind at the time, and I am not prepared to pursue hatred beyond the grave.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what restrictions have been placed under the Bonn Agreement by the Allied Occupation Powers upon development of atomic energy for civil or military purposes in Western Germany;

(2) what approaches have been made by the Federal Government of Western Germany to the Allied Occupation Powers, Great Britain included, to establish atomic energy plants, including breeder reactors, in Western Germany;

(3) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the sale of fissionable material to Western Germany.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 11th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris). No approach has been made by the Federal Government of Western Germany to the Allied Occupation Powers to establish atomic energy plants, and no question of selling any fissile material to Western Germany has been raised.

While thanking my hon. Friend with a good deal of relief for his reply, may I ask him, in view of the progress which is now being made towards the creation of a European Defence Community, whether this matter may be brought to this House for discussion and that no relaxation of the existing restrictions in the Bonn Agreement be allowed until this House has had a very full opportunity of discussing all the widespread consequences that might follow?

I do not follow my hon. Friend in saying that because progress is being made towards the European Defence Community any further action by this House is required. The situation is, as I think he will agree, adequately covered. Article 107 of the E.D.C. Treaty lays down that atomic weapons and nuclear fuel suitable for atomic weapons may be produced in such areas as Western Germany only with the unanimous approval of the E.D.C. Council, and Dr. Adenauer has further undertaken to introduce legislation to prohibit the development, purchase or posesession of atomic weapons and the import or production of nuclear fuel in any quantities which would be suitable for producing atomic weapons. I think that my hon. Friend will agree from that that the position is adequately covered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish an Addendum to the White Paper on the Berlin Conference, Command Paper No. 9080, giving the text of the speeches made on 17th February in connection with Item II of the Agenda, German question and problem of European security.

As stated in the Introduction, the White Paper on the Berlin Conference includes only the principal published speeches by the four Foreign Ministers. The only published speech on 17th February was that of Mr. Dulles, which is reproduced on page 119 of the White Paper. Since it would be incorrect to publish Ministers' speeches which were not made public in Berlin, it would not be possible to publish the addendum suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of Mr. Dulles was made in reply to one by Mr. Molotov which does not appear in the White Paper, and that in the speech of Mr. Molotov there is a very interesting discussion of the question whether or not the European security proposals made by Mr. Molotov were compatible with N.A.T.O.? It is a very important question of policy, and surely ought to appear in the White Paper or an addendum to it?

Whatever may be the importance or interest of Mr. Molotov's speech on this occasion, he himself did not see fit to make it public. It is not for my right hon. Friend to publish speeches by Mr. Molotov that Mr. Molotov has not seen fit to publish himself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has completed his study of the proposals made at the Berlin Conference regarding the limitation of the size and armament of the police forces in East and West Germany; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 24th February.

Is there any further progress in this matter? Surely here we have a very reasonable suggestion that might lead to an important limitation of the armed police forces which exist in both East and West Germany, and surely such a limitation would be desirable in the interests of all parties?

No, the responsibility for the Federal Police in Western Germany is that of the Federal Government. Therefore, no agreement can be reached on matters concerning the police forces in Western Germany save between the Federal authorities in the West and East Zone regime. As has been agreed by all parties in the Bonn Parliament, they would not be prepared to treat with the East Zone regime on this or any other matter.

Was not the proposal designed to find out the facts about the police forces or neo-military forces on both sides of the border? As there has been such a lot of speculation about this, would it not have been a good thing to have found out what the facts were?

I do not agree that it was designed to find out the facts. On the contrary, if the hon. Gentleman will read the White Paper he will see that this proposal was lifted bodily out of the context of Mr. Molotov's security treaty.

If a Question were put down, would the hon. Gentleman be in a position to state the size and nature of the armaments of the respective armed forces in East and West Germany?

Most certainly. I should be delighted to do so. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would then see that there is a very favourable comparison.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what circumstances his sanction is required by Air Service Training Limited before they can utilise the services of German airmen or train them for special functions; and if he is satisfied that the German subject who was imprisoned for transmitting wireless messages for the Japanese after the German surrender, and about which he has particulars, is now suitable for this training.

There is no need for private firms engaged in this type of training to obtain my right hon. Friend's sanction. As regards the second part of the Question, the selection of these pilots was the responsibility of the German Federal Government.

Do I understand from that answer that any kind of ex-Nazi pilot can come over here to be trained by this firm without any kind of examination being imposed on him by the British Government? Does the hon. Gentleman think that satisfactory?

No, the hon. Gentleman should not read that into the answer I have given. In any case, the German the hon. Gentleman has in mind, about whom, I think, he has sent my right hon. Friend particulars, was not a member of the Nazi Party. I have to admit, however, that the choice which was made of this pilot could have been a happier one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the official pronouncement by the Prime Minister of the Chinese Nationalist Government in Formosa on 4th March that active final preparations were being made for an attack on Communist China; and whether, in view of the forthcoming conference at Geneva on the Far East, he will consult with the United States Government with a view to preventing any such attack.

Yes, Sir. I have seen this pronouncement, which is in very general terms and does not differ from earlier statements of the same kind. The United States Government are already well aware of Her Majesty's Government's opposition to the idea of a Nationalist attack upon the mainland of China.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would seriously threaten peace in the Far East and frustrate the objects of the Geneva Conference if any such adventure were to take place in the next two or three weeks?

I think that the Prime Minister described this quite well to the House two years ago, when he said:

"Few adventures could be less successful or fruitful than for Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to plunge on to the mainland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 982.]

I think that that is still the general view of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official approaches have been made by the Greek Government for bilateral talks about the future relations of Greece with Cyprus: and what reply has been sent.

Certain informal approaches have been made and there have been statements by Greek official spokesmen indicating that the Greek Government would like to hold bilateral discussions, but, as has been made clear to the Greek Government, Her Majesty's Government cannot agree to discuss the status of Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet Government to the further representations made in respect of Russian-born wives of British subjects who have been prevented from leaving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Her Majesty's Ambassador raised this question with the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs last November. I myself made personal representations to Mr. Molotov on behalf of these Russian-born wives during the Berlin Conference. I regret to state, however, that on 27th February the Soviet Ministry for Foreign Affairs informed Her Majesty's Ambassador that Mrs. Rickitts, Mrs. Burke, Mrs. Henderson and Mrs. Bolton had dissolved their marriages with their British husbands. The husbands have been informed accordingly. This outcome of the matter will afford little satisfaction to those concerned in this country, but there is unfortunately nothing more we can do to secure Soviet exit permits for these women, who, in Soviet law, are Soviet citizens.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has just given will be received with much regret and not a little suspicion by the ordinary people of this country, who believe that this tragedy should not have occurred? Is there any evidence that the Russians realise just how important it is for good will that, from whatever country people originate, husbands and wives should live together wherever possible?

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman has said. We have certainly done our best to bring this matter home. As I say, I raised it myself with Mr. Molotov in Berlin. I am only sorry we were so unsuccessful.

As the Foreign Secretary has expressed his agreement that husbands should join their wives and that wives should join their husbands, will he express his pleasure at the fact that Mrs. Maclean has joined hers?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the question of the entry of China to the United Nations Organisation will be one of the matters which Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to discuss at the Five-Power Conference at Geneva.

The Conference at Geneva is not a Five-Power Conference but will be a meeting of the Powers concerned for the particular purpose of discussions on Korea and Indo-China.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Five Powers will meet at Geneva and does he not think it quite unrealistic to expect a statement on Far Eastern affairs unless the possibility of China entering the United Nations is considered?

That is another matter. The hon. Member is now asking me what will happen at the meeting; but the arrangements for the meeting were not for a meeting of Five Powers but a meeting of a number of Powers, more than five for the first item and an indeterminate number for the second.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, both at the Conference and before, that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the entry into the United Nations of Governments which effectively control their countries and are prepared to observe the obligations of the Charter not to resort to force or make attacks on their neighbours?

I think that our general views are known, but I am bound to repeat what I have said to the House before, that so far as our relations with China are concerned they are very far from satisfactory. We have recognised them and they are paying little or no heed whatever to most important British interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals for the easing of international tension he intends to place before the coming Geneva Conference.

A successful outcome of the Geneva Conference, which is to discuss Korea and Indo-China, would be an important contribution to the relaxation of international tension. I am not prepared to make a statement in advance on what will be our proposals on these two questions.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come for some initiative on our part and that there is opinion in this country that we are just following at the tail of the policy of the United States Government? Is he aware that he would win a great place in international history if he put forward some bold constructive plan which would result in world peace?

I do not think that what the hon. Member has said was the impression that emerged from the Berlin Conference. We did at least play our full part in Berlin, and we shall do the same thing at the Geneva Conference but, if I may say so, I should prefer to do it in my own time and by my own methods.

asked the Minister of Food the prospects for imported canned fruits for the remainder of the year.

I expect a substantial improvement.

In order to give the Minister the opportunity of giving encouragement to the housewives, may I ask if he expects a big quantity of American canned fruits to be made available which can be bought at very cheap prices? If so, will the Minister pass the fruits on to the housewife at a reduced price, or will the price have to help to make up for the cost of eggs?

I am not in a position to give information on the first part of the hon. Member's question, but the total supply this year should be something like 75 per cent, of pre-war.

When my right hon. and gallant Friend is considering the importation of canned fruits from the other side of the Atlantic, will he keep always in mind the necessity of importations from Canada as well as the United States?

indicated assent.

Has the Minister any powers to see that these imports are distributed fairly over the country, and particularly in the North-East where there are complaints of short supply?

There was a short supply, last year, when supplies were only equal to half pre-war, but distribution has been scrupulously fair ever since controlled distribution started.

asked the Minister of Food when the shortage of pure lard is expected to end; and what are the prospects in the immediate future.

There will be lard in the shops this summer after decontrol.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to explain why, for months past, there has been no lard at all? Is it because the pork which is sold to the shops is too fat to eat, or because of shortage of dollars? If it is because of shortage of dollars, how can the Minister spend so much on wheat and not on lard which the housewife wants very badly?

I should have thought that the housewife wanted bread very badly; I should have thought that wheat would have to be the first charge on any import programme. The importation of lard is entirely a question of dollars. We should need between 80,000 and 90,000 tons of lard, which would have to be bought from the United States at a cost of roughly 35 million dollars. Home production represents about one-fourteenth of an ounce per head per week.

If it is a matter of dollars, how will decontrol solve the problem?

I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to wait and see. In the case of other commodities which have been decontrolled, the position has been found to be far better than under control.

asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement with regard to the number of slaughterhouses which will be necessary as a moderate concentration in the County of Dorset.

The number required under the long-term policy of moderate concentration in this and other parts of the country is under consideration by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the three parties who are interested in the decontrol of meat, the producer, the butcher and the consumer, are looking to him to give a decision on this matter as quickly as possible? Will he, therefore, with all speed push forward and give an answer on the moderate concentration of slaughterhouses?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are two different problems, that is, the interim problem and the long-term problem of moderate concentration. The second one is extremely complex and takes considerable time, not only to decide on sites, but actually to carry out the scheme. The interim arrangement is, of course, to cover the period after decontrol next July. That is a totally different problem to which I am paying attention now.

asked the Minister of Food if he will now make a statement about the number and siting of slaughterhouses; and whether he will give favourable consideration to the claims put forward to him by the Stockton-on-Tees Corporation for the siting of a new slaughterhouse on grounds acquired for this purpose.

The Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses is drawing up a siting plan for the long-term policy of moderate concentration of slaughterhouses. The proposals of the Stockton-on-Tees Corporation will be taken fully into account by the Committee.

Is the Minister aware that, unless an early decision is taken on this, there is likely to be considerable chaos in the arrangements for slaughtering animals and that the proposals put forward by Stockton-on-Tees would provide an admirable centre for South Durham and North Yorkshire?

The hon. Member will appreciate that his is not the only part of the country which has excellent facilities. The purpose of the Committee is to find the best locations over the country as a whole. They hope to do that, but it is a very complex matter.

asked the Minister of Food the weekly average consumption of margarine in 1951, 1953 and the latest figure available in 1954.

Issues for the domestic ration and for caterers averaged 6,580 tons in 1951 and 6,590 tons in 1953. In the eight weeks ended 26th December, 1953, the average was 7,300 tons and in the eight weeks ended 20th February, 1954, 6,480 tons.

Can the Minister explain why the figures in the January edition of the Monthly Digest of Statistics show the 1951 figure as 8,250 tons as against the 6,500 which he has just given?

The hon. Member was good enough before to cast doubt on the veracity of my figures, not only in the case of margarine, but in the case of other things as well. The figures, as I have said before, are for domestic users and caterers. The hon. Member will appreciate that there are other users as well. But I made it perfectly plain originally that I was referring to the ration figures, and these figures are correct.

asked the Minister of Food how much food in kind and in money value and of what nature was supplied to Britain by the Republic of Ireland during each of the years from and including 1945 to 1953.

As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the Minister for the detailed factual reply he has promised, may I ask whether it is the policy of the Government to maintain large imports of food from Ireland and what steps he is taking to effect this?

Of course it is. The hon. and learned Member will see from the table that there has been a steady and quite startling increase in imports from the Irish Republic. As I informed him last week, we are in consultation with representatives from the Irish Republic. We have had two meetings and they have returned for further consultations.

Following is the table:

asked the Minister of Food what he estimates to be the average weekly consumption of sweets per head of the population for the periods 1938, at the beginning of rationing in 1945, from 1945 to 1951, in 1951 on derationing and at the last convenient date.

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

Can the Minister give the latest figures of consumption during the last period that is available?

The latest figure that I have is for the year 1953 and is 81 ounces per head per week. The figure for the four weeks ending 26th December is rather higher, as it includes Christmas, and is 91 ounces per head per week.

Following is the information:

asked the Minister of Food what is now the current unit cash allowance being paid by his Department in respect of eggs.

Approximately Is. 2d. per dozen.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that although the price of eggs fell abruptly it is now going up steadily as the weeks go by? Will he tell the House to what price he intends to restore eggs before he discontinues this process of increasing the price every week?

The hon. Member knows the answer to that question as well as I do, because he had to do the same thing himself, with the difference that he had more from the Exchequer in his day than I have today.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Will he first recognise that when eggs were controlled they remained at 5d. for a very long time without seasonal changes? Will he say to what level he is to restore the price now?

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the price varies with the season. The only significant observation he made was that the price was 5d. in his time instead of 3d., which it is now.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he and his Parliamentary Secretary have told the House that there were no seasonal variations when the previous control was operated?

asked the Minister of Food what effect his proposals about the restoration of marketing powers to the milk marketing boards will have upon the amount of the food subsidy on milk.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that in the statement the Ministry recently made about the restoration of the powers of the Milk Marketing Board it was implicit that the subsidy was to be taken away either by stages or altogether, and that we should know where we are, as this will affect the consumption of milk?

If I may suggest it, the hon. Member ought to read the White Paper a little more carefully. There he will find that so long as an element of consumer subsidy remains, prices and distributive margins will remain controlled by the Government.

Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman read the statement issued by his Department a fortnight ago?

I have read it and I recommend the hon. Member to read it again.

asked the Minister of Food to state for the latest available period the non-take-up of rationed foodstuffs, given separately for each foodstuff, and expressed as amounts, percentages and number of rations.

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

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what are the latest non-take-up figures for cheese?

Thirty-one per cent.

Following is the information:

asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary glass cleaning methods used in licensed premises in the London area; and what steps he will take to see that good standards of cleanliness are maintained in the interests of health.

I have this in mind. Provision for effective methods of glass washing is included in the suggested food hygiene regulations on which interested organisations have been invited to comment.

Leaving aside the possibility of a regulation, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is anything he or the Government can do to raise the standard which at present leads to such things as glasses being washed in rather beery water?

Proposals have been put to all the people concerned and they have been asked to let me know by 15th March—today—what their views on these suggestions are. In regard to the enforcement of these things, the Bill in another place—the Foods and Drugs (Amendment) Bill—deals with powers and regulations.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the question of the cleanliness of what is normally put into these glasses?

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the discontent among fish merchants in the fishing ports at his action in ordering, without prior notice to the industry, the abrogation, as from 30th June, 1954, of the Returnable Containers Order; and if he will take steps to rectify this and so obviate the loss and confusion thereby caused.

The hon. and learned Member is no doubt referring to the White Fish Authority (Returnable Containers) Regulations, 1953. They expire in normal course, but not until 31st December, 1954. Before then my colleagues and I hope to receive alternative long-term proposals from the Authority.

Whilst thanking the Minister for the first part of that reply, may I ask whether he realises that if the policy which is adumbrated in the Question with regard to the second part is persisted in, it will involve a loss to all concerned, producers, consumers and merchants? Will he rectify that?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Member is aware that there is no unanimity in the trade on this question, and also that the regulation is a temporary one due to war-time conditions. The White Fish Authority is now looking into the whole question of what is to follow the temporary measure, and I hope that it will be in a position to make recommendations very soon.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will compensate Mr. A. Chambers for loss of earnings consequent upon his removal from employment at the Rolls Royce Works, Hucknall, in consequence of his Department's instructions.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of his decision this man, after working for 13 years at Rolls Royce, was dismissed with only a month's wages, that he has since suffered a loss of earnings of more than £100 a year? While recognising that the duty of the Minister to protect national security, is it not also right that the individual should be protected against the harsh consequences of such a decision? Will not the right hon. Gentleman make an ex gratia payment?

I think the hon. Member recognises that any legal claim Mr. Chambers has lies against the company. Should he feel that the company in terminating his appointment has in any way infringed the terms of his employment, he should address himself directly to it. I am not prepared to make any statement about ex gratia payments. I do not feel that it is for the Government to make ex gratia payments in cases of this kind. That would involve us in the principle that any consequence of Government policy or Government action would require the Government to accept claims for ex gratia payments and this would take us a very long way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the individual has suffered directly as a result of the action of the Government in this case? There is no doubt about the facts, and the firm had no alternative in the circumstances. The Minister must take responsibility in order to be prepared to help.

I am exceedingly sorry if the individual in this case has suffered. He has in fact found another suitable job—I understand it is somewhat less highly paid than the previous one. I should point out that this power to instruct a firm to deny an individual access to secret information has been part of the standard form of Government contracts since before the war. This power has been used seven times by the Ministry of Supply since the war—three times by myself and four times by my predecessor in the late Government. I am following exactly the lines of the previous Minister.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what has taken place is strictly analogous to what would have taken place if this gentleman had been a civil servant employed in a Government Department, with the difference that if he had been such a civil servant he would have had some rights to be heard before the removal took place and would have been removed to other employment at comparable rates of pay? Is it fair to treat a man differently solely because he did not happen to be in direct Government employment?

I am not going to state exactly what are the arrangements for civil servants, which would take us a long way from the Question. The procedure in dealing with cases of this kind which occur in outside industry was laid down by the late Government after full consultation with the trade unions. I believe that in the rare cases where it has to be applied it works fairly and smoothly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1945, due to political prejudice, the Socialists of South Croydon sacked me and I am still awaiting compensation?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that with another increase in the household budget, caused by the increase in the price of tea and coal, old-age pensioners who are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, will now have further burdens; and what action he intends to take on behalf of old-age pensioners to meet this increase in the cost of living.

There has been no appreciable rise in the Interim Index of Retail Prices since retirement pensions were last increased. Rises in the price of some commodities have been offset by a fall in the price of others.

Is the Minister aware that the rises to which he referred concerned the only items which old-age pensioners are able to purchase—foodstuffs? The increase of prices of commodities now taking place—as any housewife, or any hon. Member who is prepared to go into the budget of old-age pensioners knows—are such that they cannot afford them. Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something in the forthcoming Budget for these poor old people, who really are suffering?

As the hon. Member knows, there has been a two-point rise in the index since the retirement pensions were raised in June, 1952. It is not possible to found a case for increased pensions on changes in individual prices which take place from time to time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) the estimated cost per annum of providing an extra pension of £1 per week to retirement pensioners who have attained the age of 75 years; and what would be the approximate saving in National Assistance payments;

(2) the estimated cost per annum of providing an additional pension of 10s. per week to retirement pensioners who have reached the age of 75 years; and what would be the approximate saving in National Insurance payments.

An increase of £1 a week for retirement pensioners who had reached the age of 75 would cost about £64 million a year now, rising to nearly £150 million in 25 years' time. The saving on National Assistance payments would at present be about £12 million a year. An increase of 10s. a week would cost half these amounts, and the saving on National Assistance payments would at present be about £9 million a year.

Will the Minister study that last figure for a 10s. increase for people over 75, as it seems less frightening than some figures which he has quoted on previous occasions?

I will certainly study the matter, but I remind my hon. Friend that, broadly speaking, women pensioners expect to receive their benefits five years earlier than men, and I doubt whether it would be possible to circumscribe a concession within the limits of the figures I have given.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is considering the coming deficit in National Insurance finance; and what urgent steps he proposes to take to remedy the matter.

This matter is very much under consideration in connection with the forthcoming review of the National Insurance Scheme. I do not think I can anticipate the results of that review or the report of the Phillips Committee, which is considering the economic and financial problems involved in providing for old age.

Has my right hon. Friend studied three articles by Lord Beveridge recently published in the "Sunday Times" which show that the Welfare State is "in the red"? Does he not realise that a comprehensive Welfare State is ruining not only the finances of the country but also the character of the people? Will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, in the next Budget, reducing this expenditure?

This is, of course, a very difficult and anxious problem, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that things do not always turn out quite as badly as expected and that the National Insurance scheme produced a quite unexpected surplus of £270 million in the first three years of its existence.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) how many mineworkers on extended benefit on 9th February, 1954, are not now receiving unemployment benefit or National Assistance, but are still registering for employment; and what is the number drawing extended benefit on 9th February, 1954, who have since obtained employment;

(2) how many mineworkers, who were on extended benefit on 9th February, 1954, have since deceased; how many of those on extended benefit then are now receiving National Assistance; how many are on retirement pension; and how many are still drawing unemployment insurance benefit;

(3) how many mineworkers who were receiving extended benefit on 9th February, 1954, have since then had their total income increased; and how many have had their total income reduced.

The National Insurance Act passed in 1946 expressly limited extended benefit to a period of five years from the appointed day. It therefore came to an end on 4th July, 1953, and there were no men on extended benefit on the date mentioned by the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a corresponding figure not only for the date I included, 9th February, 1954, but also for 4th July, 1953? May I at the same time say that, as he is answering all three Questions together, I find his reply rather inadequate.

I am most anxious to help the hon. Lady with any information which is reasonably at my disposal, but her Question related to a date some seven months after extended benefit came to an end, and I therefore cannot give her any particulars which would be of any help to her. I should be pleased to furnish her with any information at my disposal, but I cannot pick out coal miners as a class from those who were receiving extended benefit on 4th July, 1953, which is the last date on which anybody could receive extended benefit.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his action in suspending Section 62 of the Act has caused unjustifiable and unwarrantable hardship to people who do not deserve it?

In the first place, it was not my action; it was the result of legislation passed by the preceding Government. In the second place, I deny that any hardship has resulted from the expiry of Section 62.

The right hon. Gentleman had power as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to extend the operation of that Section. In face of the representations made him before he took action, why did he not extend it?

I have no power of any kind to extend that Section.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will inform the House what was the increase, expressed as a percentage, of coal and oil, respectively, used by the British Electricity Authority and in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in January, 1954, over January, 1953.

3·7 per cent, in coal and 56 per cent, in oil.

Can my hon. Friend account for the great proportional increase in the use of oil during this period, compared with the increase in the use of coal, which is the traditional source of fuel for the production of electricity?

I think it is because of the small quantity of oil consumed. The total amount of oil used by the power stations is less than 1 per cent, of their total fuel consumption.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what sums he has paid out in each year to the nearest available date in compensation under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, giving separate figures for South Wales and the United Kingdom, respectively.

Government grants to the National Coal Board towards the cost of compensation throughout the United Kingdom totalled £500,000 in 1951–52, £100,000 in 1952–53 and £200,000 in 1953–54. No separate figures for South Wales are available.

Can the Minister inform the House whether the figures under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act are better or worse than the obligations for the same kind of damage inherited by the Coal Board from private coal owners in the past?

I am afraid I have no information on that question.

In view of the very small sums which the Treasury have had to pay for righting this grave social injustice, will the Government now consider introducing a new Bill to implement the whole of the Turner Committee Report and to get rid of the social injustice which remains?

That is quite a different question.

Arising out of the Minister's first reply, should not it be very easy to obtain a separate figure for Wales? Should not that be one of the figures which could easily be provided for the House?

I will take into consideration what my hon. Friend says, but there is no information on the point available at present.

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, why he permits the importation of manufactured sheet cardboard for use by converters and. At the same time, refuses to allow an adequate importation of the necessary raw materials, in the form of wood pulp, to enable home production of cardboard to be increased.

Home production of board since October last has been the highest ever recorded in any comparable period. Despite this high rate of production, demand cannot be met from home mills alone. Some imports of board must, moreover, be permitted in conformity with our general policy towards the traditional interests of other countries. Imports of both board and woodpulp are restricted for balance of payments reasons.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the demand for board is very largely due to the rise in the rate of re-housing? Would he not agree that it is reasonable to bring in the raw materials which make the board rather than to import the board?

In general I would agree with my hon. Friend, but my information is that the industry, and particularly those parts of it which are using a reasonable proportion of home-produced materials, is working practically at full production at present. We are watching the position carefully.

Is the Minister aware that this is an ideal industry for the Highlands, using the great timber resources in the Highlands, and that the Government ought to do something to try to get a firm of this kind established in Inverness?

I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I will bear it in mind.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Norway, in particular, has a large exportable surplus of board which the exporters in the United Kingdom urgently require in order to package their goods? In view of the dead soft character of the Norwegian currency, could not this matter be reviewed with a view to removing many of the harsh import restrictions imposed two years ago?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that a great many of the harsh import restrictions which had to be imposed have been removed, and we are looking forward very much to the day when it will be possible to remove the balance, but our position is not such as to enable us to do it straight away.

Before the Minister thinks of the needs of Norway, will he have regard to the large quantity of timber available in the North of Scotland, especially since the great storm of a year ago?

That is very much in our minds. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that considerable progress has been made in disposing of fallen timber.

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, whether he will make an immediate increase in allocations of imported wood pulp, having regard to the artificially high costs of production and inefficiency caused by the present restrictions and the fact that any imaginary saving in foreign exchange is offset by the failure of home-produced articles to be competitive, under present conditions, in world markets.

No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 9th March last. Since last October the weekly average production of paper and board has been higher than in any comparable period since the war, and is also above the pre-war average figure.

Is the Minister aware that despite this rise, which is largely due to technical developments, the position is that the mills in this country are not fully occupied? How much better it would be if more pulp were allowed in? Is he further aware that in the opinion of the trade this is the right moment to raise these restrictions now that there are alternative sources of supply of pulp at a price more or less the same as the Swedish and Norwegian prices?

I think I have already said that production is running at a record level at the present time. I think my hon. Friend is anxious about the position of the export trade, but it is encouraging to note that exports rose between 1952 and 1953 by 40,000 tons; 259,000 tons last year as compared with 219,000 tons the year before.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of repaying the value of post-war credits held by widows who are only entitled to a pension of 10s. per week under existing legislation.

I regret there is insufficient information available to make this estimate.

Will the Minister try and find this figure, because it is likely to be so small that it will make the idea feasible?

I cannot comment on that as we have no records as to the pension position of the holders of post-war credits.