asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to ensure the full use of production capacity at the Royal ordnance factory, Dalmuir, Clydebank.

So far as can now be foreseen, there will be sufficient work to keep this factory occupied at about its present level of activity for at least the next 18 months.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some redundancy has been declared quite recently, and that this situation causes a lot of uncertainty in a district where men are recruited one day and may be declared redundant the next? Can he give an assurance that the work in this factory will be such that redundancy will not be periodically declared, as has occurred in the past?

I do not think that that statement is quite correct. I understand that there were rather too many skilled fitters and rather too few skilled machinists, and that, consequently, some adjustments had to be made in the balance of the labour force.

asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made regarding the provision of additional plate-rolling capacity to increase the out put of steel plate.

Plate-making capacity is being steadily expanded. Production in 1953 was some 200,000 tons more than in 1952. A further increase in output of about 100,000 tons is expected this year, and developments in the industry should lead to still further increases in 1955 and 1956.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made on the North-East coast in the modernisation of the extension which he has mentioned before?

Increased capacity is being set up in the South Durham Steel and Iron Company, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware.

Will all this increased production be directed towards shipbuilding?

Not all of it, but a substantial part.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a further statement on the inter-Departmental committee and the working of the steel plate distribution scheme in so far as it affects the shipbuilding industry.

The inter-Departmental committee, with the full co-operation of the steelmakers, is continuing successfully to assist firms, who are experiencing difficulty in placing orders for necessary supplies of steel plate.

While fully appreciating the work of the inter-Departmental committee, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are still complaints about the inadequacy of supplies, and will he give every assistance to that committee to ensure that it continues its work?

Certainly we shall. No doubt the hon. Gentleman realises that the supply position has greatly improved. I should like to point out that this view is supported by the fact that although supplies from abroad are now plentiful, and although foreign prices have fallen, consumers are now importing only a small fraction of what was imported a year ago.

While everyone appreciates that supplies are increasing consequent upon the action that has been taken, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is a feeling of alarm in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries at their inability to get hold of the amount of plate that they require? Will the right hon. Gentleman prod his inter-Departmental committee a little more to ensure that these industries get their correct allocation?

I do not believe that there is a feeling of alarm. I think the hon. Member is voicing alarm which was felt quite a long time ago. The position has changed appreciably since then.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will reinstate the civilian test pilots and air crew at Boscombe Down who are now under notice of dismissal.

No, Sir. The two men in question are surplus to our requirements.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree to reconsider his decision in view of the fact that civilian test pilots have had far more experience than R.A.F. pilots, whose tour of duties is normally limited to two years? Is it not a fact that there is already a backlog of test-flying, even before the dismissal of these civilian test pilots comes into effect?

We are employing civilian test pilots for the test-flying of civilian planes, and I am satisfied that the number of civilian pilots and civilian air crews we are retaining is sufficient to carry out the work which we have in hand on civilian aircraft.

asked the Minister of Supply if he has studied the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the loss of £256,000 in the last financial year on hostels and whether he will close them down.

Yes, Sir. I am as much concerned as my hon. Friend by the size of the deficit which has been incurred year after year in the provision of hostel accommodation. Some months ago I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary thoroughly to investigate this matter. In the light of his inquiry, I am considering various measures to reduce this expenditure, including the closing of certain of the hostels.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I know that the Government are doing away with controls as fast as possible, but does my right hon. Friend not realise more fully than ever before that the Socialist policy of State run trading, because there is no competition, invariably means a loss to the taxpayer? Will he do away with these hostels as soon as possible?

It is necessary to subsidise a certain amount of hostel accommodation for essential workers and apprentices in Government factories in out of the way and overcrowded places; but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a limit beyond which public expenditure is not justified.

asked the Minister of Supply what orders he has placed for hydrogen bombs similar to those recently exploded in the Bikini Islands by the Government of the United States of America.

I am sure the hon. Member is not expecting me to give him any enlightenment on this subject.

Is it not in the public interest that some enlightenment should be given by the Minister about the possibilities of being blown into eternity? Is he aware that recently we were told that he had acquired atom bombs for the Royal Air Force and that the new bombs were 600 times more powerful than the bombs which he had bought? Does that mean that he is going on buying obsolete bombs, or what is he going to do?

I am interested to know that the hon. Member is keen to see that the destructive power of our weapons shall be increased.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no consumer demand for this dread weapon?

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the circumstances in which Mr. W. Walton, ex-Royal Navy, whose Service number was P/264362/68 and whose Ministry of Pensions number is B9/M1/12127, has been refused an increased disability pension, in view of the fact that this man is unable to work at all.

The disability for which Mr. Walton is pensioned originated in civil life before he joined the Royal Navy. I am advised by our senior medical officers that the assessment of 40 per cent, on which Mr. Walton's pension is based fully represents the degree of disablement ascribable to the effects of his war service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinions in the documents with which I have been furnished, which are of a professional character, there is no mention of this man's health being affected by anything which occurred prior to his war service? If I send him these documents will he have this case examined again?

I will certainly look into anything which the hon. Gentleman likes to send me about this case.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the pamphlet consolidating regulations governing contributions and benefits and eligibility thereto under the National Insurance and Family Allowance Acts will be available.

I expect the pamphlet to be published this summer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what pension is payable to a man who loses the Slight in one eye and becomes completely deaf as the result of a war injury; and what increase in pension he receives if he becomes completely blind in the other eye from causes entirely unconnected with military service.

As the man would already have been assessed at 100 per cent, for his war injuries he would not receive any increase in his basic pension for subsequent loss of sight. But if such a case should occur we would do all we could for him by way of supplementary allowances.

I thank the Minister.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many war disability pensioners are receiving National Assistance grants.

The National Assistance Board regret that no later figures are yet available than those given to the hon. and gallant Member on 9th June, 1953.

Has the Minister any reason to think that the figure of 21,700 disability pensioners who were then in receipt of National Assistance has gone up or down? Will he make a check on these cases to make sure that the need for increased National Assistance does not arise from their war disability?

The hon. and gallant Member no doubt is aware that we can only get a rough estimate of the figures by taking a sample of the files of persons in receipt of National Assistance at any one date. The figures which we got last year represent a smaller proportion of war pensioners than the average for the population as a whole.

As the number of war pensioners is inevitably going down, and the number of war pensioners receiving National Assistance is increasing, does this not represent an undesirable trend which shows that the war disability scale for these cases is inadequate?

I have no information at present which leads me to believe that the numbers of war pensioners in receipt of National Assistance is on the increase, but I shall have some further sample figures available in three or four weeks' time.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the urgency of the situation facing retired pensioners due to the increased cost of living, he will consider making an immediate interim increase in retirement pensions in anticipation of any permanent increase he may be contemplating.

I cannot add anything to what my Parliamentary Secretary said in the debate on 19th March.

Is the Minister not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy of creating a margin for saving by transferring more money from the poor to the rich is having a deleterious effect upon this section of the community, and will he not consider this practical proposal for alleviating the plight in which they are in at present?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should, in fairness, put that question to the Chancellor, when he will get the answer which he deserves.

I did put it to the Chancellor and it was transferred.

As the Parliamentary Secretary, on 19th March, said that it was the Government's aim to restore the value of pensions without delay, and as there has been more than a week's delay since then, can the Minister at least assure us today that a statement will be made on this subject before the Easter Recess?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said all that but with this qualification:

"should the finances and the economics of the country permit, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 816.]

I would refer the hon. Member to that very full statement.

Cannot the Minister at least undertake to make a statement before Easter?

No, I cannot undertake that.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement following his discussion with the deputation representing the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners' Associations.

Yes, Sir: the deputation pressed their claim to a 50s. pension for everyone and referred to their recent survey. I pointed out that it would cost an extra £570 million a year immediately in pensions to concede their claim, to say nothing of consequential improvements in other payments. I added that I could not accept conclusions drawn from 190 letters (some of which were incomplete) which was all they had sent me, as a fair indication of the circumstances of over 4 million pensioners.

I referred to the National Food Survey, which showed that even in 1951 old people were taking up as much rationed food on average as others, and said that when later figures were available I expected them to disclose a distinct improvement in the dietary of old people.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still of the same opinion that old-age pensioners are better off now than ever they have been before? If so, is he not aware that, spite of what he says, the vast majority of the people are definite that the old-age pensioners must be a first charge on the Budget?

The hon. Gentleman's Question asked for a statement on the results of the deputation I received last week. I cannot add anything to my answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the result of his discussions with the deputation he received recently from the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners' Association; what representations he has received recently from the National Old-Age Pensioners' Associations of England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, and the National Old-Age Pensioners' Association of Wales, respectively; and what action he has decided to take thereon.

As regards the Federation, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds). I have received no representations recently from the other associations.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much the Industrial Injuries Fund increased in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952.

In the financial years 1950–51, 1951–52 and 1952–53, the Industrial Injuries Fund increased by about £20 million, £19 million and £15½ million respectively.

What is the total surplus available at the date nearest to the present time?

My recollection is that it is in the neighbourhood of £80 or £90 million.

Can my right hon. Friend say why so many people are now taking advantage of the common law? Is it because they do better under that than under the industrial injuries scheme?

That is rather a long way from the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the increased charge to the Industrial Injuries Fund of an increase in the special hardship allowance to a maximum of £2 a week.

About £2¾ million a year at present. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate that only pensioners with assessments of 20 per cent, or less would derive the full benefit from the increase he has in mind, and those with assessments of 70 per cent, and over would derive no benefit at all.

None the less, would the Minister not agree that in view of the answer he gave to Question No. 16, the fund would appear to be able to bear such an improvement? Will he further consider the matter?

As the hon. Member knows, the fund is financed on wholly different principles from those on which the National Insurance Fund is based. The object is to build up a reserve, the interest upon which, coupled with the contributions, will be large enough ultimately to bear the annual outgoings in benefit.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many men and women were certified and received payments for scheduled diseases in 1950 and 1951.

In 1950, about 36,000 men and 6,000 women were awarded benefit for a prescribed disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts. The corresponding figures for 1951 are about 35,000 and 7,500, respectively.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the figures seem strangely small in view of the fact that they represent all the scheduled diseases for the whole of the industrial population? Does it not mean that certain cases, such as dermatitis, cannot easily be accepted for full pensionable payments? Is he aware that it is as difficult for anyone to receive a pension for dermatitis as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?

The whole question of the prescription of industrial diseases is now before the committee, appointed last May, presided over by Mr. Beney. On the whole, it is a matter for congratulation that the claims for industrial diseases are not of a larger order.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power which of the major recommendations of the committee on national policy for the use of fuel and power resources have now been carried out.

Of the committee's 14 major recommendations, 12 have been carried out in whole or in part. Recommendations 39 and 40 were not accepted, but alternative action has been taken to achieve their underlying purpose.

Will the Minister make available to hon. Members a statement of the way that these recommendations have been carried out?

It would be a rather long statement, but I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member about it if that would help.

In view of the great national importance of the matter, will the Minister not consider what my hon. Friend says and put a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I will certainly consider it, but I cannot promise.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated capacity of new electrical generating plant required to be commissioned in the next 10 years to enable industrial electrification to reach an installed horse power per worker comparable to the United States productivity standards, and the estimated capital cost.

No such estimate can reasonably be made.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated capacity of obsolete electrical generating plant of low efficiency proposed to be replaced by modern high efficiency plant in the next 10 years, the estimated capital cost, and the approximate saving in fuel consumption.

The development of the industry envisages the commissioning of some 17,000 megawatts of new high efficiency plant in the next 10 years costing at present prices over £1,000 million. Reduction in the output from old plant will depend upon the increase in demand for electricity and, therefore, the saving in fuel consumption cannot be estimated.

Will the capital needed be made available to the industry by the Government?

I would rather have notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he will express in percentage figures the effectiveness of each chimney at Dunston power station, County Durham, in the prevention of dust and smoke pollution;

(2)the type of installation to prevent dust and smoke pollution in each chimney at Dunston power station.

I am advised that the cyclone grit arrestors on chimneys 1 and 2 are working at 73 per cent, efficiency, those on chimneys 3 and 4 at 68 per cent., and the electrostatic precipitators on chimneys 5 and 6 at 97 per cent.

The Minister will be aware that in February last year he gave a promise that the most modern and up-to-date smoke pollution apparatus would be installed at Dunston power station. Later, in May, he said he hoped that it would be effective in June or September of last year. In view of the figures he has given today, which show such a remarkable difference, will the hon. Gentleman say what the Board is doing to raise the remaining four chimneys to the efficiency of the other two, because the grey dust that is spreading all over Newcastle creates a real nuisance problem for the local authority?

On a point of order. Is this not a question dealing with the day-to-day working of the British Electricity Authority?

We looked into it very carefully and found that it was not.

My reply last year related to chimneys 5 and 6, which have now reached an efficiency of 97 per cent., which is exceedingly high. The other chimneys relate to considerably older plant. The solution of the problem in their case, I think, will be the gradual exchange of load on to more modern plant.

We know that the new station is to be erected at Stella and will lighten the load, but, even then, the four remaining chimneys will still operate. Will the Minister exert what pressure he can upon the Board to get better plant installed in the other four chimneys, to prevent this grey dust nuisance spreading?

I cannot hold out any hope that it would be practicable to insert into the old chimneys the electrostatic precipitators which are in the new chimneys.

What effect has this new apparatus upon the sulphur oxides leaving the chimney? How much of these are removed?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

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

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, if he is satisfied that the funds allocated by the United States Government for the purchase of raw cotton by use of sterling will be fully used; and whether he will make a statement.

My noble Friend is hopeful that the 20 million dollars aid allotted for cotton purchases will be fully used, although difficulties over contract terms are at present delaying claims against it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall all the arguments we had from the Government about the return to private buying earning us dollars? In view of the doubts that have been expressed in the "Economist" and elsewhere about the total inability of the private cotton buyers to use the 20 million dollars worth of sterling that has been allocated for this purpose, does the Minister not feel that, on balance, the experiment on private buying in raw cotton will lose us dollars?

No, I certainly do not think so. This is exactly the kind of soluble difficulty that, we thought, might arise. It emphasises the necessity for the kind of flexibility that will be a feature of the new arrangements.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House at the earliest opportunity whether these problems have been solved and whether we are to expect this 20 million dollars worth of sterling to be used for this purpose? Alternatively, if the problems prove insoluble, will the Minister give the House an early report?

I think there is very little doubt that the aid will be used, and not wasted. If the right hon. Gentleman is not happy about the way things develop, I have no doubt that he will put down another Question.

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, the Government's proposals for safeguarding the interests of contracting-in cotton spinners, especially in respect of non-American cottons, after the reopening of the Liverpool Cotton Market.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the right hon. Gentleman, I will answer this Question at the end of Questions.

At the end of Questions —

As my noble Friend said on 23rd March, in another place:

"The Commission has asked its present customers to state how much cotton of the various growths they need to tide them over until the new season's crops become available for private purchase. That is October-November, 1954, for the United States and the Egyptian crop, February-March, 1955, for Pakistan and East African, and May, 1955, for Peruvian and Sudanese. The Commission is taking the necesssary steps to ensure that as far as possible it can meet these requirements either from stock or from fresh purchases that it will make.

When the Bill becomes law, the Commission will invite its customers to enter into firm contracts for the forward delivery of this cotton even after 31st August. The contracts will, of course, have to be entered into some little time before the Commission ceases active trading on 31st August, but a sufficient interval will be allowed to allow contracting-in spinners to make adequate provision for their needs.

Until the final date stipulated for the conclusion of these contracts the Commission will not offer to contractors-out any cotton likely to be needed by contractors-in. Under these contracts, spinners will have the choice of buying the cotton at a fixed price or 'on call,' that is, on terms which leave the final price to be fixed in relation to the market price at the time when delivery is required.

If a spinner buys at a fixed price for future delivery he will be able to hedge his purchase on the Liverpool Futures Market. If he buys 'on call' he will not need to hedge: he is covered against fluctuation in price, because he only fixes this when he takes up cotton or sells his yarn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 186, c. 610–611.]

While recognising the value of this somewhat belated and partial recognition of the force of the arguments addressed to the Minister from this side of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will confirm the statement made by his noble Friend in another place when, referring to the Raw Cotton Commission, he said:

"I will not wind it up while stocks are there and while it is still operating."—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 186, c. 614.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that means the Commission will not be wound up while these arrangements are in progress? Will he further say why he cannot assure the House now that the Raw Cotton Commission shall continue in business for the sterling area cotton until such time as the Liverpool Futures Market can assure him that a futures contract will be available for these growths?

What this means is that the present facilities will continue to be available until the 1955 crops come along and, therefore, contractors-in will have their supplies assured through the Raw Cotton Commission until that time, either buying on firm price or on call. So far as winding up the Commission goes, the Government are still of the opinion that it will be wise to wind up the Commission as soon as possible after 31st August next. I am sorry that I have forgotten the last part of the question asked by the right hon. Member. If he will repeat it, I will endeavour to answer.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the last part of my question would hardly arise. I asked why he could not assure the House that the Commission will continue to do this work until the Liverpool market was able to assure futures contracts for colonial growths? Is not what he has said a contradiction of what his noble Friend said, that the Commission will not be wound up while these arrangements are in operation? Is that not until at least 1956?

No, it means exactly as I have described it, that facilities will be available until the 1955 crops come round. I do not think there is anything difficult to reconcile between what my noble Friend said and what I have said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am sure his noble Friend will be as astonished as I am at that statement?

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, if, in view of the offer of additional supplies of Canadian newsprint remaining open until 1st April, he will now announce that sufficient paper may be imported in the second half of this year and next year to allow the newspapers to be freed from rationing and page control in 1955.

No, Sir. My noble Friend has given the Newsprint Supply Company authority to import an additional 25,000 tons of newsprint from Canada in the second half of this year for the purpose of building up stocks. He cannot, at this stage, give any assurance as to the total level of newsprint imports which it will be possible to permit in 1955. That is a matter which must be looked into again later this year in the light of the balance of payments position at the time.

Does my right hon. Friend think that this grudging concession to necessity brings us any nearer to the day of freedom from newsprint rationing? Is it not a fact that our newspapers are the smallest in any of the free Western countries?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very anxious to make what progress is possible with this matter, but I cannot give him an assurance that we can go beyond this concession at the present time.

Is it not the case that this concession may be taken up almost entirely by new users of newsprint, and does not the Government policy make it difficult for the industry to contract ahead, as is necessary if it is to get more newsprint?

It may well be that this additional quantity will not allow any expansion of the present size of newspapers, but that is a point which we shall watch in the coming months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members on this side of the House view this matter with very great concern, and hope that steps will be taken to bring this rationing to an end as soon as possible?

I quite realise that, and I know my right hon. Friend realises, too, that we are not yet out of our dollar difficulties.

As many millions of dollars are already being wasted on less essential purposes, will not the Minister bear in mind that it is quite impossible to make any kind of reasonable plans for future supplies of newsprint unless contracts are placed three or four years ahead? Is it not a fact that this nibbling at the problem for a few months at a time serves no purpose at all?

Will my right hon. Friend contrive to bring on to the Floor of the House, for discussion, the principles which cover priority in the importation of dollar merchandise?

asked the Attorney-General what compensation he will pay to Corporal George Henry Leighton, Royal Army Service Corps, for wrongful imprisonment from July, 1953, to March, 1954.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has asked me to say that Corporal Leighton's pay for the period from his arrest to the determination of his appeal has been restored to him.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that his reply is totally unsatisfactory? Is it not a fact that this man was wrongfully convicted, and did not Lord Goddard describe the evidence against him as "prejudiced and uncorroborated"? He was kept in gaol for the whole of the sentence until his appeal was heard and his conviction quashed. Is he not entitled to some compensation?

If Corporal Leighton makes an application for an ex gratia payment it will, of course, be considered, but my right hon. and learned Friend is not at present aware of any grounds which indicate that the case calls for such a payment?

Would the Solicitor-General not agree that ample grounds for such an application exist, and may we have an assurance that he will at any rate sympathetically consider it if it is made?

No, Sir, I am not aware of any ample grounds at present for the payment of compensation.

Will my hon. and learned Friend not agree that being in gaol for eight months, coupled with the words of the Lord Chief Justice, constitute considerable grounds?

I am answering a later Question about the alleged delay.

Is the Solicitor-General not aware that the obligation in this matter rests upon the War Office and not on Corporal Leighton, that it is the War Office which has done wrong to Corporal Leighton, and it is the War Office that should offer some compensation for the wrong that has been done to him?

The hon. Gentleman had better await the answers to his next Questions.

asked the Attorney-General (1) why there was a delay of eight months from July, 1953, to March, 1954, in bringing the appeal of Corporal George Henry Leighton against his conviction by a court-martial in Aldershot before the Courts-Martial Appeals Court;

(2) if his attention has been drawn to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice on 22nd March on the delay in bringing cases before the Courts-Martial Appeals Court; and what action he will take to speed up this procedure.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the public disquiet caused by the revelation of delay in hearing the appeals of Service men against conviction by court-martial; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid any possibility in the future of innocent men being punished owing to the lapse of time between court-martial and appeal.

Corporal Leighton was convicted by court-martial on 17th September, 1953. Its findings were promulgated on the 24th September and Corporal Leighton could then have presented to the Secretary of State the petition required by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951. However, he did not do so until 12th December, 79 days later.

The Act provides that the convicted person cannot apply for leave to appeal until he has been notified that his petition has not been granted or a specified period, in this case 40 days, has elapsed. Having been notified that his petition had not been granted Corporal Leighton applied for leave to appeal on 19th January. His application was considered first by a single judge, who referred it to the full court. Leave to appeal was granted by the court on 15th March and the appeal was heard on 22nd March.

I have made detailed inquiries and I am satisfied that no undue delay took place after the presentation of the petition in complying with the requirements of the Act and the rules made thereunder and I can assure the House that all concerned are fully aware of the need to deal expeditiously with applications for leave to appeal.

It is unfortunate that Corporal Leighton did not present his petition much earlier, as he could have done. The procedure might be speeded up in some cases by reducing the period within which a petition has to be presented, but that would mean curtailing the rights of a convicted person.

May I ask the Solicitor-General, first of all, whether he can give us an assurance that Corporal Leighton was afforded all possible legal advice as to how he should act in this matter? Secondly, have there not been other complaints of long delay in cases reaching the Appeal Court—the Solicitor-General will know there have been several other complaints over the last two or three years? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore make some further investigation into the procedure to see whether something cannot be done to speed up appeals in these cases?

I am aware of one other complaint arising since this Act was passed in 1951, and that complaint was dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend in answer to Questions in this House. That is two complaints, including this one, out of a large number of cases that have been tried by court-martial.

Does not what the Solicitor-General has just said show that there was considerable delay before approval was given to proceed with the appeal, and does not this case show quite conclusively that the present position of a petition first and the appeal afterwards is conducive to injustice, at any rate in one particular case?

The procedure for these appeals was very fully considered in this House when the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act was on its way through Parliament during the last Parliament. It was decided that it should be a condition precedent to asking for leave to appeal to a courts-martial appeal court that a petition should be filed with the Secretary of State for War in a case such as this. It is only right that, if a petition is presented, it should be carefully considered, because if that petition is granted it avoids the necessity for any further appeal. It was fully recognised, according to my recollection, when the Bill was going through the House, that under the procedure it was possible that presentation of a petition by the convicted person might take place at such a late date that it was quite impossible for the appeal to be determined before he served his sentence.

If this man did not present the petition for 70 days, is it not obvious that he did not know about the procedure? Surely it is the duty of someone to advise the man of what was his right.

I would not assume for one moment that he was not informed of his rights. A person convicted by court-martial has the right of presenting two kinds of petition, one a petition which is called a prerogative petition and the other the petition required under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act. He can present both at the same time if he wishes. In this case, Corporal Leighton chose to present a petition under prerogative first.

Could the hon. and learned Gentleman clear up this point? Corporal Leighton would have suffered loss of pay as part of the sentence that was imposed on him. Now that the sentence has been set aside, am I not right in supposing that the War Office will be obliged to return him that pay? There is no question of that being any kind of compensation.

The conviction having been set aside, the War Office has given him the pay that he would have had. The War Office has paid—[HON. MEMBERS: "It had to."]—may be because it had to, but the point is that it has done it.

The Solicitor-General said that he would not assume that the corporal was not informed of his legal rights, but can he assure the House that this man was informed of them?

I remember that at the time the Bill was going through the House of Commons we satisfied ourselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Was he informed?"]—that full precautions would be taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Were they?"]—to ensure that persons convicted by court-martial should be fully informed of their rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was he?"] That is a question which must be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; it is not a question that I am in a position to answer more than this, that I am sure we were satisfied, on both sides of the House, that steps would be taken to ensure that convicted persons should be aware of their rights.

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer a question of this kind. If he says that there is no compensation, surely he knows whether the man was informed.

The question I am answering is not one about compensation, but whether there was any undue delay.

rose —

Order, order. We have spent quite enough time on this matter now.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the White Paper summarising the recommendations of the Drogheda Report will be available.

A White Paper is being prepared now and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make it available to Parliament.

What is holding this up? This report was presented last July, several weeks ago the hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to the House that it would be published, and he is still waiting for it.

There is nothing holding it up, but it happens to be an extremely complicated and difficult job. When it is ready, it will be laid before Parliament.

May we expect that, as a result of the delay, we shall get a fairly lengthy report and not a summary?

I think I can promise the right hon. Gentleman a rather lengthy summary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the offer of joint citizenship made to the French by the British Government in June, 1940, has ever been officially withdrawn.

On 25th April, 1945, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House that this offer no longer represented the policy of His Majesty's Government. I have nothing to add to that statement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is still being referred to in the French Press, that there is in France at present a great nostalgia for fuller co-operation with this country, particularly in many elements, and some of the best elements, of the Resistance, who are opposed to the policy of E.D.C. and are in favour of what M. Daladier calls a real Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that 1940 is a long time ago, that this is 1954, and that it is possible to get back to that attitude of real co-operation between the whole of Europe?

Since that statement was made a number of statements have been made by the previous Government and the present Government with a view to making our collaboration with France closer, and I think that the whole House supports those statements and hopes that hon. Members will not go to Paris to contradict them too much.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what offers have been made in precise form to the French Government of British participation in the proposed European Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the proposals for closer association between Her Majesty's Government and the projected European Defence Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning the proposals he has made to the French Government for a British contribution to the European Defence Community.

Discussions are now taking place with the French and other European Defence Community countries about the exact form of our association with the European Defence Community. I expect these to be concluded shortly, when I shall be glad to make a full report to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the French that he could never ask this country or this House to accept the limitations on sovereignty which are being attempted to force on the French at present, unless in the interests of something much more useful than the little Europe of six, this horrible hybrid between the Holy Roman Empire and the Berlin-Rome axis?

As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government are forcing nothing on the French. They are now considering something which was on French initiative.

Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that the one thing that is standing in the way of ratification of the E.D.C. Treaty is the betrayal by the Prime Minister and a number of his leading Ministers of the assurance they gave at Strasbourg that Britain would join as full members? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and make up his mind that now is the time to give the lead to Europe which Europe is asking us to do?

As I say, our proposals are now being considered by the Powers concerned. I hope shortly to make a statement to the House, when the right hon. Gentleman and others will be able to make their comments upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish as a White Paper the text of the European Defence Community Treaty, and the protocols, conventions and declarations related thereto.

The texts of those agreements and declarations relating to the European Defence Community Treaty to which Her Majesty's Government are a party have already been laid as a White Paper. I have no authority so to publish the European Defence Community Treaty itself, of which Her Majesty's Government were not a signatory. Moreover, there is no official English text. I will, however, make available in the Library of the House an unofficial translation of the Treaty and the main protocols.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the last part of his reply, may I ask whether he will make something available to the general public in this country, so that it can be made aware of what it has already been committed to by the decisions of the House, and what right hon. Gentlemen opposite are proposing to commit it to in the discussions in regard to British participation, which have been referred to already?

I will certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman about putting the facts before the public. If I do that, I would also ask whether I might have his help and consideration in this matter for, so far, some of his hon. Friends and himself have seen fit to mislead the public about it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all I am concerned with is that there should be full clarity in this matter, that everybody should know exactly where we stand and that there should be no misleading and vague declarations from the other side?

In view of the very great interest in this matter to the whole House, will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider whether we could not have a White Paper giving us the text of this Treaty?

My right hon. Friend has no authority to lay as a White Paper, before the House, a treaty to which Her Majesty's Government are not a party. I do not think it has ever been done before. I will certainly consider the suggestion, but it is a little difficult.

Since Her Majesty's Government have given guarantees which are based upon this Treaty, surely that constitutional point can be avoided.

We will certainly look into it, but all the guarantees and undertakings to which Her Majesty's Government are a party are either already before the House or will be laid before the House as they come forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate discussions with other countries conducting atomic experiments, with a view to concluding an international agreement on methods of minimising dangers from radioactive dust which may drift from one territory to another following experimental explosions.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making upon on these matters tomorrow.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be appropriate to utter some words of sympathy to the Japanese fishermen who suffered as a result of pursuing their peaceful occupation, and will he not advise the Prime Minister that some initiative would be welcomed, not only in Japan but by the whole civilised world?

I am sure that the countries concerned in these tests have the greatest interest in seeing that they are conducted in such a way that they do not cause suffering or unfortunate results to others. For the rest, the hon. Gentleman had better await the statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes taking in the light of the request made by the Government of Israel to Her Majesty's Government and other Governments for the recent outrages in Israel to be referred to the Security Council; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the Mixed Armistice Commission now that Israel has withdrawn her members from it.

Her Majesty's Government are consulting the United States and French Governments, as cosignatories of the Tripartite Declaration of May, 1950, regarding the desirability of an early meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation on the borders of Israel. The Security Council is, in any event, due to discuss the report of 1st March on this subject by the United Nations Chief of Staff, which was called for in the Council's resolution of 24th November.

Since General Bennike's report was issued there have been further regrettable incidents, including the murder of Israeli passengers in a bus near Beer-sheba, in regard to which Her Majesty's Government have expressed their deep sympathy with the Government and people of Israel.

Last night an attack is reported to have taken place on a Jordan village about two miles from the Israel frontier. Casualties totalled nine Jordanians killed and 17 wounded. General Bennike has ordered an immediate investigation and the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission has convened an emergency meeting of the Commission.

As regards the second part of the Question, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to preserve and strengthen the United Nations truce machinery. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have made this clear to the Governments concerned, and have expressed the hope that all concerned will exercise restraint in the present tense situation.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him, particularly, whether the measures which he proposes to take regarding the strengthening of the truce machinery will be a replacement of the Mixed Armistice Commission or an increase in its membership and of the countries represented on it, in view of its ineffectiveness owing to its being composed of Arabs and Jews equally up to now?

It would not be a replacement of the Mixed Armistice Mission, which I am sure the whole House would think a mistake. The question is whether we can strengthen the frontier guard. I should like an early meeting of the Security Council to examine these matters, which are causing considerable concern. We have expressed our views to some of the Governments concerned and I hope that a meeting will be held shortly. I think that General Bennike's report makes the occasion for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the instructions given to the British High Commissioner for Germany regarding the constitutional amendment on defence passed by both Houses of the Federal German Parliament.

On 25th March, the Allied High Commission informed the German Federal Government that it approved those sections of the law supplementing the Federal Basic Law which were designed to clarify any doubts as to whether the Bonn and European Defence Community Treaties were constitutional under the Basic Law.

The High Commission also informed the Federal Government that it understood that the Federal Republic did not contemplate taking, and the Allied High Commission would not approve, any measures of a legislative or administrative nature in the field of defence by virtue of the provisions of the law, as long as the E.D.C. Treaty had not entered into force.

Will the hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full text of the High Commissioner's Note and of any German reply so that we can all see exactly where we stand in this matter? Can he give a categorical assurance that this constitutional amendment will have no legal validity if the E.D.C. Treaty is not ratified by all parties?

I will certainly see whether there is anything that we can make available to the House. I should have thought that the whole House, including even the hon. Member, would be pleased with the decision, which is that the German Government, while passing the law, have agreed with us that it will not come into effect unless and until E.D.C. comes into effect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the Governments have agreed that the German Government will not take any action until the European Defence Treaty has been ratified? Is that purely a political agreement? Is it not the case that the amendments to the Constitution are completely unconditional and unlimited? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the document that has been sent by the High Commissioner is a document approving or not approving, within the terms of the Occupation Statute, this amendment to the Constitution?

As the hon. Member knows full well, the Occupation Statute is still in force and the Question was whether the arrangements which E.D.C. allows for could be carried out without contravention of the German Basic Law. That is now agreed. As to the future, I think that the statement which I made is quite accurate. These measures will not be taken until E.D.C. comes into force. It seems to me extremely reasonable that the German Government should get ready for such action and should agree not to take it until E.D.C. comes into force.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will give details of the approach made by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government for the release or transfer of one or more of the former Nazi war criminals now in Spandau gaol;

(2) on how many occasions, and on what dates, approaches have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government for the release or transfer of one or more of the former Nazi war criminals now in Spandau gaol; and what was the nature of the Soviet Government's reply.

In the agreement with my French and United States colleagues, I raised with Mr. Molotov while I was in Berlin the question of providing hospital treatment for sick prisoners and arranging for the disposal of the bodies of dead prisoners. I suggested that these matters should be examined by the four High Commissioners.

I have now received a message from Mr. Molotov to say that the Soviet High Commissioner in Germany is ready to take part in such discussions. No suggestion has ever been made by me to the Soviet authorities that any of the Spandau prisoners should be released.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that among correspondence he has received about this matter has been a letter from a very well known lady, which was sent on to him by the Prime Minister's private secretary? Will he tell us the name of the lady?

I have not the slightest idea, so I cannot impart that interesting information.

If I put a Question on the Order Paper will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me the names of the persons who corresponded with him on this subject?

In view of the discussions that are shortly to take place between the four High Commissioners, I do not think that I should bring any lady's name, known or unknown, into this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply the Spanish Government have made to his request for an official observer to attend the forthcoming trial of Basques at Vitoria on 25th March.

No special permission is necessary for observers to be present at trials of this kind. The present trial is being attended by a British consular representative.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the action he has taken, may I ask whether he does not agree that the fact that there are British observers at the trial of these men, who are exercising no other than what we in the democratic countries consider human rights, has encouraged them to speak up in their own defence?

The hon. Member must not try to lead me, as a representative of Her Majesty's Government, into making comments on judicial procedure in another country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Governments have ratified the Convention on the Equivalence of University Entrance Examinations; and what are the terms of the Convention.

The United Kingdom instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe on 22nd March, 1954. I am not aware that the Convention has yet been ratified by any other signatory Government.

Copies of the Convention were presented to the House on 12th January, 1954, as Command Paper 9039, but I am sending a copy to the hon. Gentleman for his own information.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any action is possible by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to get other countries to come into line on this matter?

I do not think that there has been any considerable delay—the Convention was only signed in Paris on 11th December last—but I will bear in mind the point which the hon. Member has made.