asked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Authority to speed up the development of electrical schemes in rural areas.

The boards are well ahead of their programme for rural electrification and no such direction is needed.

Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made, may I ask him if he is aware that recently there have been many complaints from farmers in my division that they are unable to get labour for some of the outlying farms, that they get no priority for electricity unless they intend to install grain dryers, that many small farmers on the wolds do not want grain dryers and cannot afford them, but that they would like priority for their milking equipment?

I am aware of these difficulties and so are the electricity boards. In fact, in the East Midlands and Yorkshire areas, which are the areas concerned, about 85 per cent. of the farms have been connected compared with the national average of 69 per cent. That shows that the boards are well aware of the problem, but I can understand that in individual cases difficulty remains.

asked the Paymaster-General how much coal was undistributed at collieries at the latest convenient date.

At 4th May, 1957, 2·7 million tons with a further 1·5 million at opencast sites.

Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing accumulation of coal in colliery sidings, particularly in a section of a Northumberland coal field, and that this is causing some concern to the mine workers of the area? Is it not possible to produce some additional incentive for consumers during the summer months so that this increasing quantity of coal can be removed?

This is really a matter of administration for the board in which I should not intervene. I know that the board is aware of the difficulties that may arise if undistributed stocks become excessive, but so far I have not heard of congestion at the pithead. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind and will send me details of them, I will convey the facts to the board.

Is it not the case that the problem is with smalls? Would not the Paymaster-General consider permitting an even greater amount for export in order to relieve the collieries of the large accumulated stocks they now have?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about exports. I do not think it is a matter of "permitting" exports. We should he glad to see increased exports of small coal.

asked the Paymaster-General what progress he has made in his discussions with the oil companies about removing their surcharge on petrol.

asked the Paymaster-General what has been the result of his consultation with the oil companies in regard to the emergency surcharge.

The hon. Members will have seen from the announcements of the oil companies that, following consultations with my noble Friend, they have taken off the remainder of the emergency surcharge. My noble Friend has now decided that it is no longer necessary to ask them to consult him before making changes in prices.

Is not the Paymaster-General aware that petrol is still 2—½d. a gallon more than pre-Suez, which means higher fares and higher prices? Why did the previous Minister of Fuel and Power tell the House on 10th December last:

"I have every reason to believe that when the emergency is over the emergency surcharge will disappear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 16.]

Was the Minister tricked by the oil companies, and is that why he misled the House and the public?

I think the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish between the cost of carrying oil and the cost of buying it from the Gulf. The price has risen by 2½d. a gallon, but this country has no control over Gulf prices, which must continue to be reflected in the price to the consumer.

In view of the great variations in the statements made from time to time as to the amount by which petrol is now higher in price than it was at the onset of the Suez crisis, namely, last July, can my right hon. Friend say whether the 2½d. referred to in the last supplementary is correct or not?

My impression is that the higher elements in the price of petrol since before Suez are the increase in the basic price at the Gulf of about l½d. a gallon and the increased cost of 1d. a gallon in the retailers' margin, agreed between the oil companies and the retailers, which are not a responsibility of the Government.

While appreciating that the price may or may not have gone up—because we hear different stories about that—may I ask whether it is not a fact that these companies are turning over millions of pounds of profits? Surely it would be far better if the Minister were to advise them to cut prices, if need be out of their profits, and so help to reduce the cost of living? Why should they keep on making these millions of pounds of profits?

To pay for the development of their industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? Did I understand him to say that in future the oil companies will not consult the Ministry when they wish to change prices? If so, can we look forward now to some competition amongst the oil companies and a difference in oil and petrol prices to the consumers? Secondly, will he say by how much now petrol has increased since the pre-Suez situation?

I thought I said earlier that the higher price of petrol of about 2½d. a gallon since the pre-Suez crisis was the effect of the increased price the companies have to pay to producers, plus the retailers' margin. As to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, I think that if he will look into the oil business a little more closely he will find that it is in fact a very competitive industry.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will now free the supply of household coal from the present system of allocation.

asked the Paymaster-General when he anticipates that there will be sufficient house coal available to free it from the allocation system.

I cannot add to the Answer I gave on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as East Anglia is concerned, this allocation is based on the assumption that the climate of Norfolk is the same as that of Bournemouth, which, climatically at least, is not correct, and that as long as the existing allocation continues East Anglia will suffer from a sense of injustice?

I will certainly consider the comparative statistics of East Anglia and Bournemouth, but, of course, it is not possible in these allocation schemes to produce exact differentials for every area. Our claim is to remove the whole scheme as soon as possible, but I am afraid that in present circumstances, with the continuing need to import large coal, it is not possible to foresee the end of allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose to the United Nations the establishment of an international pool of experienced administrators from whom newly independent Governments could select personnel for employment in technical duties and to train citizens of the territories concerned in such duties.

No, Sir. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards a civil service under international responsibility was made clear by my noble Friend the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in a speech to the 22nd Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in July, 1956, a copy of which is available in the Library. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support the supply of experts and advisers to States requesting their services, under the Technical Assistance programmes of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies.

As regards the last part of the Question, the United Nations, the Specialised Agencies and the Extended Technical Assistance Programme allocated in 1956$1·4 million for the training in public administration of national civil servants and other suitably sponsored and qualified persons.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask whether he will urge upon his right hon. and learned Friend some reconsideration of this position for two reasons: first, that if there is an international panel Governments may be able to select from it, without any feeling that there are national political reasons behind it, and secondly, that it will be a big, positive, constructive step towards peace?

I appreciate the points which the hon. Gentleman has put, but there have been no great demands in that direction by the newly-formed Governments concerned, and so I do not think there is any great need to bring these points to my right hon. and learned Friend's notice.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that we remember with regret the speech made in Geneva by the noble Lord a little while ago, and will he represent to the Foreign Secretary that Technical Assistance is really a major British interest, and that the lack of a properly trained, long-term service, pool of experts is a major difficulty? Will he support the proposals made by the Secretary-General under this head?

I do not think that what I have said contradicts in any way what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is merely a question of a primary organisation. As I have indicated in my Answer, there is no great demand for this central organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the attitude expressed by the United Kingdom delegate on the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East to the statement of the International Confederation of Free Trades Unions in which they call for the early establishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.

There was no discussion in the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the statement made by the International Confederation.

Can we expect some change in the attitude of the British Government when the United Nations Assembly meets next autumn? Have not thirty-two Governments now endorsed this scheme, and could it not be put into operation if the British and American Governments agreed?

I cannot at this point add to the very full statement which we have already made, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are reports expected on this subject at the present time at the United Nations. Obviously, when those reports become available we shall study them.

Will Her Majesty's representatives in the Economic and Social Council in Geneva take a more constructive attitude about this than they have done in the past?

I have no doubt they will examine these reports as and when they come forth.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been desequestrated; and what steps he is now taking to ensure that the property of British nationals is returned to them or compensation paid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been de-sequestrated, to what extent discussions are now taking place to lead to similar action in regard to the property of British nationals.

I have seen these reports, but upon inquiry it seems that these measures have the effect of removing from sequestration the property of persons arrested or placed under supervision by the Egyptian police, and I understand that this affected Jews of nationalities other than British and French, including Egyptian Jews, but it did not relate to citizens of Israel.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 13th May, discussions are to be held with the Egyptians in a neutral capital. The possibility will then be explored of securing satisfactory arrangements to cover the financial claims which we have against Egypt.

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he has any information about the private property of British subjects in Egypt? Has it been sold or otherwise disposed of?

I am afraid I have no further information on that, but, as the Prime Minister has said, all this will be borne in mind.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind in approaching this matter that the best results are likely to be obtained by using the utmost diplomatic skill and business acumen rather than by more doubtful methods?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the meeting of the Security Council on Suez to support the French request that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles laid down in October, 1956.

Her Majesty's Government certainly support the view that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles of the Security Council agreed last October. We shall continue our efforts to this end. The Security Council is meeting today and we await the outcome.

Will the hon. Gentleman not only emphasise the purely provisional nature of the present Canal arrangement, but use Her Majesty's Government's influence at the United Nations to do something to restore confidence in that organ as one capable of ensuring respect for international rights?

We will certainly do everything we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, 1956, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the sending of a ship by the Government of Israel through the Suez Canal as a peaceful test;

(2) whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the Security Council should implement their Resolution of 13th October, 1956, urging full freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal by calling on the Government of Egypt not to interfere with Israeli shipping passing peacefully through the Suez Canal.

As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 13th May, we believe Israeli ships share the rights of all countries to freedom of passage of the Canal. And as the Prime Minister said during the debate on 15th May, we shall do all we can, through the United Nations and with our friends, to see that these rights are assured.

We stand by the Resolution of September, 1951, and by the six principles of October, 1956. The Security Council is discussing the Canal question today. Whether there should be a peaceful test voyage by an Israeli ship must be a matter for the Israeli Government.

In view of the official statement made in Cairo last week by a Government of Egypt spokesman to the effect that they would stop any Israeli ship seeking to pass through the Canal, would the Minister of State at least make it clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, any interference by the Government of Egypt with an Israeli ship on a peaceful occasion would be contrary to all international law?

I think that my original Answer made that quite clear. Should the situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned arise, it would be a matter for Israel whether to take the question to the United Nations or the International Court.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend think again? In view of the terrible results that might ensue from any untoward circumstance arising out of a test voyage, will he revise his view that this concerns the Israeli Government alone? It concerns the whole world. Will he attempt to prevent the Israeli Government acting single-handed?

I think I made the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear. The actual decision to take a ship through is for the Israeli Government, but thereafter it would be a matter for the United Nations or the International Court.

In those circumstances, cannot the Minister of State make it clear that if the Israeli Government should exercise its undoubted right to take a ship through the Suez Canal, that would receive the sympathetic support of Her Majesty's Government? Cannot he make it clear now that if Israel should do that we would say that Israel was within her rights and that we would, at any rate, give her moral support in so doing and support in the United Nations?

Yes, Sir. I think Her Majesty's Government have always made that quite clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when last our Ambassador in Moscow discussed the question of repayment of Tsarist Russian debts to this country; what were the results of such discussions; and what he now proposes to do.

In spite of repeated representations, the most recent of which was made last year, the Soviet Government have not yet agreed to enter into negotiations for a general settlement of outstanding British claims against the Soviet Union. We shall lose no suitable opportunity of pressing this question.

Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that whereas the Russian Government today are known to pay their debts promptly and probably better than most other countries in the world they do not seem to want to do so in the case of debts incurred only shortly before the Revolution for the building of railways and other developments in Russia, from which they are benefiting today? The sum is very small, but large numbers of people in this country are still suffering from not having received any interest on the money, and certainly no return of their capital, over these many years.

Her Majesty's Government do appreciate the position of those people, and we shall make every effort to get this matter settled, but it is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend would suggest.

Is the hon. Gentleman well versed in history, and would he remember the days when those loans were first made, and that the Social Democrats of Tsarist Russia issued a warning to the world that if ever the Tsarist régime passed away the debts would as well and that they would refuse to recognise them?

I am reasonably well versed in history, but I think I should be out of order if I were to answer that today.

Try. It would not be out of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that British citizens resident in the United Kingdom who visit the United States of America have as easy facilities in the matter of passport visas and entry permits as United States citizens visiting the United Kingdom.

None, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by making representations to the United States Government on this subject. Since Her Majesty's Government abolished visas for United States citizens in 1948, the United States Government have abolished visa fees and progressively extended the validity of visas for United Kingdom citizens resident in the United Kingdom.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to look at this again, because there is a good deal of feeling about it? There would be very wide support on this side of the Atlantic if the Foreign Secretary pressed for complete reciprocity between the United States and ourselves in the matter of passport conditions and visa charges. There is not complete reciprocity today.

I appreciate the point that there is not complete reciprocity, but these matters are for the internal arrangements of the Governments themselves; and the adjustments made have to a large extent met many of the criticisms made up to now.

Is it not a fact that since we abolished visas for the Americans they have introduced fingerprinting for us? Is that complete reciprocity?

The timing in the hon. Member's suggestion is not quite correct, but I entirely appreciate the position about fingerprinting.

Will my hon. Friend not agree that the greatest barrier to travel to the United States is the non-availability of dollars? Will he have conversations with the American Government, or see that his right hon. and learned Friend does, to see whether tourist dollars could not be made available at a reasonably cheap rate so that, for example, tourists would not have to pay £2 for a steak in New York?

My hon. Friend's proposal is attractive, but at the same time has nothing to do with passports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of refugees living on British registered ships; the average length of time of their sojourn there; and what steps he is taking in the United Nations or elsewhere to reduce or eliminate entirely the number of such people on British ships.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27th February by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary to a Question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss). In view of the terms of that reply, I do not consider that any action in the United Nations or elsewhere is called for.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Nobel Prize-winner stated recently that there are literally thousands of seamen in this unfortunate position? Could not something be done, because they are virtually prisoners on board ship? Is it not an outrage that such a thing should occur?

I have not actually seen that statement, but my information is not quite to that effect. In any case, the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends to make to the United States Government concerning the future of the Suez Canal Users' Association.

Any such proposals would appropriately be put to the Suez Canal Users' Association Council, which reviews from time to time the work of the Association. As the Prime Minister said on 13th May, the Association will be a valuable instrument, which the user countries intend to keep alive. It provides a means for the major user Governments to consult and concert policies in the coming months, when they will be closely watching the operation of the Canal.

Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it would be appropriate to remind the American Government or the Secretary of State—who, after all, was largely responsible for the formation of the Association—of the existence of the Association and also of his responsibility to make the Association an effective one?

The United States Government are, of course, well aware of the existence of the Association and agree that it should be kept alive.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes to take to concert a common policy in the Middle East between this country and the United States of America.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 1st April, we and the United States have identical aims in this area even if there are at times divergencies on how to achieve them. The process of close consultation, which is the best method of ensuring common policies, is continuous.

Now that the Suez controversy has been well argued into the ground, does my right hon. and gallant Friend not feel that in looking to the future there is a very grave danger that Western policies will continue to be frustrated and thwarted by their own divided counsels? Will he not suggest to the American Government that in the Middle East, to start with, there should be some attempt at official level to concert in detail a policy for this extremely vital part of the world?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary. As he knows, these matters were very fully discussed at Bermuda and since then there has been close and continuous consultation.

While accepting the value of consultation with the United States in these matters, will Her Maejsty's Government be careful not to begin regarding the Middle East as an Anglo-American preserve? Will they consider having co-operation not merely with the United States, but on a very much wider basis, notably with countries in Asia, probably under the leadership of India?

We shall certainly consult about the Middle East with those countries we think oppropriate.

Is it not a fact that American public opinion seems to be far ahead of the opinion in the American Administration on this subject?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his note of 16th April to the Spanish Government on the subject of Gibraltar frontier restrictions.

No reply has yet been received. At the same time, no further incidents have been reported on the frontier.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his information from the frontier regularly varies from the information I get, and that my latest information, which is only two days old, is that the situation on the Gibraltar frontier is exactly the same as it was when we discussed this matter and which caused the Government to send a note to the Spanish Government? Is he determined to allow both ends of the Mediterranean to get into the same mess?

If the hon. Gentleman would care to discuss his information with me, I should be very glad to take appropriate action, but I can only say that the information available to me at present is that there have been no further incidents on this frontier since our debate in the House before Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the China Committee of the Consultative Group to reach agreement, he will now reduce the China embargo list to the level of that applying to the Soviet bloc.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the stalemate in the China Committee of the Consultative Group, Her Majesty's Government will now exercise their right to act in the matter of China trade contracts according to the economic interests of this country.

A meeting of the China Committee of the Consultative Group took place last Friday in Paris. Agreement was not reached, Her Majesty's Government are now considering what action they should take, and a further meeting of the Committee is being held this week.

But Her Majesty's Government are always considering it. Is it not time that they did something, because this Committee will obviously not reach agreement? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) last Thursday that the Government would not agree to make a statement in the House before reaching any agreement? Will he reconsider that and promise that he will make a statement before agreeing to anything which the American Government may put forward?

I realise that hon. Members feel strongly on this subject. Her Majesty's Government, of course, realise that this is a problem which cannot go unresolved, but it is right that we should attend this meeting this week, and if there is no agreement, we will, of course, have to reconsider the whole position. The House will be told at the appropriate time.

Is the Minister aware that the feeling that there is something ludicrous about discrimination in trade between Communist China and Communist Russia is by no means confined to one side of the House?

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to me last Thursday showed that the Chinese surplus with the sterling area was now about £70 million? What will he do about employing this amount of money? Is he to "footer" about with this problem until this surplus is turned into other currencies which take the matter altogether out of our hands?

I think that my last answer makes it quite clear that we shall not "footer" about with this problem and that we will consider the position and make a statement as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the number of procedures and control lists now governing Britain's exports to China and the Soviet bloc, he will now reconsider the advisability of publishing a White Paper to make the relevant information available to British exporters.

No, Sir. The details of the procedures governing exports to China and the Soviet bloc are confidential. As far as the lists are concerned the items under control for the Soviet bloc were published in the Board of Trade journal of 16th October, 1954, and those under embargo for China were published in the Board of Trade journal of 23rd June, 1951. As I have just said, discussions are continuing in the China Committee on the scope of the China trade controls.

But if a White Paper were published, would not it show that our export policy is no longer being decided in the British Parliament but in the American Congress, and are not Parliament as well as the exporters themselves entitled to the whole of the story?

It is really the principles that are confidential. I do not think that exporters, if they go to the Board of Trade, have any doubt about the methods they should adopt. if those lists are changed they will be re-published.

Whatever may be the outcome of the discussions now taking place in Paris, surely it will be necessary to inform the House of the situation which will have arisen? Therefore, I should have thought an application for a White Paper on the subject, including what may happen and the contemporary lists, was perfectly reasonable.

I will certainly bring that point to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, within the limits of the strategic embargo, those who are trying to promote the exports of this country find the present differentiation between China and Russia both illogical and irritating?

Yes, that is really why we wish to get this matter resolved as soon as possible.

Is it correct to say that the United States representative on the China Committee is the only representative who is against the liberalisation of trade with China?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these meetings are confidential.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to a reference to the Court of International Justice for its ruling as to whether the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway.

My right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind the possibility mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend told him on 17th April, British ships are in fact exercising the right of free and innocent passage through the Gulf of Aqaba. In general, the present position seems reasonably satisfactory.

Would the Minister of State make it clear whether British ships passing through the Gulf of Aqaba have every right to go to the Port of Elath if they so desire?

I think we have always made that quite clear. I myself referred to it in the General Assembly earlier this year.

Is not it a fact that where rights of passage are normally exercised by maritime nations, if a riparian nation wishes to interfere with that right that nation itself should go to the International Court; it should not be the obligation of some nation interfered with to assert its rights, but for the interferer to assert the right to interfere?

I think that from the British point of view the situation is reasonably satisfactory. We have declared that we look upon this as an international waterway and our ships are using it.

Is not it now up to the United Nations to say that all ships shall have free access to both these waterways?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to remedy the state of affairs revealed by the report of the Defence Committee of Western European Union, especially the failure to secure adequate standardisation of equipment, mobilisation plans or logistic systems of the various national contingents.

The recommendation and Report of the Defence Committee have been received by the Western European Union Council today. They will be considered by the Permanent Representatives shortly.

It would not be proper for me to anticipate their conclusions.

Standardisation of equipment is not a field in which spectacular results can be quickly achieved, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that good progress is already being made as to standardisation in the appropriate organs of the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, namely the Standing Armaments Committee and the Defence Production Committee.

While welcoming that statement from the Joint Under-Secretary, may I ask him whether he is aware that what is alleged in this Report is not a failure to make spectacular progress but virtually an allegation of a failure to make any progress at all? As this is spelled out in black and white and has been before a Parliamentary Assembly in Europe, with no answer of any kind being given by any Minister of the member States, it had a very damaging effect. Is not it extremely important, if these things are true, that they should be put right and that, if they are not true, they should be denied?

One readily accepts the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the second part of his Question, but I think, at the same time, that possibly the picture he has painted is rather more black than it actually is. As I have stated, this is being considered, and it would be improper at this stage to anticipate any conclusion.

Will the Government give us a White Paper on the result of this discussion, so that we can see where we are?

I do not think it is necessary to call for a White Paper, but certainly a statement will be issued in due course and when the proper proceedings have taken place.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to have something more black than black?

Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. and learned Friend has read this Report, because it is so shocking that, if it is true, it is plain that the defence of Western Europe is nothing more or less than a mockery? It is a very serious Report which deeply shocked all members of the Western European Union Assembly.

I admit that the Report does contain some very disturbing details. My right hon. and learned Friend has, of course, read it; but it is being considered at the moment and it would be premature for any statement to be made.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, as a result of the change in Government defence policy, Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Coventry, have been told by his Department to reduce their proposed development vote by 45 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to provide alternative contracts so as to avoid the dismissal of the skilled experimental labour force involved.

The cancellation of the supersonic bomber project announced in the Defence White Paper involves the cancellation of the contract for its engine, and this together with some running down of other work will bring the firm's expenditure this year on research and development work for my Ministry down to about two-thirds of last year's figure. There is little likelihood of my being able to find alternative work to fill this gap.

As the Minister, on 8th February, gave an undertaking to try to find alternative work to offset the cutback in defence orders, and as that policy was further put forward in this House by the Lord Privy Seal on behalf of the Prime Minister on 20th February, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what value he expects the people of Coventry to put upon the word of this Government?

Whenever possible I certainly will do my best to find alternative work, but I must remind the hon. Lady that the aircraft industry expanded unduly as a result of the Korean rearmament boom and some measure of contraction is now unavoidable. We ought to be realistic about that.

May I ask whether the Government accept responsibility for finding alternative employment for those who are rendered unemployed by the cuts in the defence services? Do they accept that?

No, Sir. My responsibility, as far as this Question is concerned, is limited to endeavouring to find alternative defence work and alternative civil work in the aircraft field, and that I will most certainly do. It is unrealistic to expect civil work to offset a reduction in defence work.

As the right hon. Gentleman himself approved the plans for the reduction of defence expenditure, with the consequent result in unemployment, has he consulted the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour to see if something can be done to provide alternative employment?

Yes, Sir. Consultations with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour are always taking place.

When the Minister said that the industry had expanded unduly as a result of Korea, is he solemnly telling us that we did something wrong in Coventry in making the aircraft that we were asked to make? Are we to take the blame for that? What does the Minister mean by "unduly"?

I meant that in the course of the Korean rearmament boom the aircraft industry expanded to a point which can no longer be sustained.

Then the right hon. Gentleman does not mean "unduly"?

On a point of order. May I ask what redress a Member has when a statement is made by the Prime Minister in this House which is specifically repudiated by another Minister? Furthermore, this figure was reached because the Minister of Supply gave this company the money because of the excellence of its technical organisation?

The hon. Lady could raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, if she gets the opportunity.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Supply why the items shown as signals vans, ambulances, platform trailers, and radio-equipped cars were not offered to the Home Office for Civil Defence use before being offered for sale by auction at Ruddington on 14th to 17th May, 1957.

The items referred to were offered to the Home Office.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in certain parts of the North-East, Civil Defence forces are unable to undertake their proper training because, in the words of a letter to me from the Under-Secretary at the Home Office a few days ago, "the despatch riders ought to use their own motor-cycles"? Having regard to the fact that motor-cycles were on offer at this sale, ought there not to be closer co-operation between the Departments concerned?

The fact that these items were for sale was known to the Home Office, and, from the Home Office point of view, there was no requirement for Civil Defence purposes. I therefore had no alternative but to proceed with the sale.

asked the Minister of Supply if he will now revise the security regulations which have permitted a Conservative Member of Parliament to fly in the Victor bomber and not a Labour Member of Parliament.

I am anxious to gratify the desire of the hon. Gentleman for a flight in the Victor as soon as I can, but I would ask him to curb his impatience for a little longer until the flying programme is further advanced and more aircraft are available.

While not complaining at all that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was able to fly in this aircraft, because I am quite certain that the safety of the country was in no way diminished by that fact, is it not the case that the refusal to allow me to accept an invitation was not based upon expedience or on the flying programme but on security grounds? In view of the fact that commercial airline pilots were able to fly in this aircraft, why should there be discrimination against myself?

I have no objection, on purely security grounds, to the hon. Gentleman flying in this aircraft, but I would ask him to appreciate that if I give him permission to fly in this aircraft, then by the same token I should have to give permission to other Members of Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to discriminate in his favour. The point I am trying to make in this is that the number of aircraft is at the moment limited, that they are scheduled for test flights for development, and to open the door to many passengers would impede this work of development, and that, I think, would be undesirable.

In reply to the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the Minister has said that he had no objection on security grounds to my hon. Friend flying in this aircraft. Was there anybody else who had such an objection, and, if so, why? Since one hon. Member of this House has already been permitted to fly, why is the right hon. Gentleman refusing permission to my lion. Friend?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman on this side of the House who has made a flight happens to be the deputy-chairman of the company which is making the aircraft. There are all kinds of cases in which some Members of Parliament have advantages over others, and we cannot possibly eliminate all these natural advantages.

Is not the Minister aware that by allowing my hon. Friend to fly in this aircraft he is not opening the door to any other hon. Members? Matters of this kind can always be dealt with through the usual channels, and may I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that this question of flying in the Victor should be taken up in that way?

I shall be perfectly happy to see this matter discussed through the usual channels, but I would ask the hon. Member for Uxbridge to have some appreciation of my difficulties. If I allow one hon. Member to fly it means that I must allow others. I think there is a special difficulty in the case of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should be very glad to see the matter discussed through the usual channels.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been an executive and a director of this company for a number of years, and that I flew in this aircraft in the course of my duties with that company? Would it not be a good thing if more executives of companies flew in their companies' aircraft? May I say that my firm would be very glad to take the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) if he can be cleared, but, on the other hand, may I be allowed to fly in the Vulcan, the aircraft of our competitor?

This matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, and I think it is better to leave it there.

asked the Minister of Supply under what security regulations German journalists are permitted to fly in British military aeroplanes but not British journalists.

There is no regulation giving such a preference.

Is it not the case that in the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in the Hawker 7, and that permission has been refused to British journalists? Is not this another example of how the security regulations—and it was a matter of security in the other case, and nothing at all to do with the firm, because the reason given was that it was a matter of security regulations—is not this another case in which security regulations can be put on one side when commercial expediency so decides?

It certainly is the case that within the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in this aircraft. It also happened that in exactly the same flight four British journalists took part, too. As a matter of fact, the security objections to journalists flying in this aircraft were removed as long ago as last autumn.

Quite apart from the fact that it was quite impossible for six men to fly in this aircraft, can we now take it from the Minister's reply that other British journalists who want to make this flight will now be permitted to do so?

Yes, Sir. There is no objection to other British journalists taking part, and, in this instance, they took part in flights on exactly the same day.

asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received on behalf of doctors serving their interim year in hospitals; and whether he has any proposals to make to improve their conditions of service.

My right hon. Friend has received no representations on behalf of these doctors. In common with other junior doctors in the hospital service they have had an increase of 10 per cent. in their pay as from 1st April last, as an interim measure pending the report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that has been aroused about the hours of work being done by many of these staffs, and is this not due to the restrictions which his own Department has imposed on new appointments for more senior staff in hospitals?

No, I do not think so. I think the hon. Gentleman may he raising the matter as the result of an article in the Observer. As regards living conditions and the organisation of work, these are primarily matters for the hospital authorities and the senior medical staff. The other matters, other than those to which I have referred, are really matters for the appropriate Whitley Council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have personally received representations on this matter, quite apart from the article in the Press, and will he not at least consider something more, as far as family allowances or something of that kind is concerned?

That really is a matter for the Whitley Council.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will now recommend that a contribution should be made by Her Majesty's Government to the special fund for malaria eradication established by the World Health Organisation.

I have nothing of substance to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service on 14th November, 1955, when he pointed out that provision for malaria eradication is included in the regular budget of the organisation to which the United Kingdom contributes, and that in these circumstances it is not proposed to contribute to the special fund.

Is that not a quite disgraceful reply in view of the fact that it is common knowledge that there is a race with time against this disease because of the growing immunisation of some of the carrier mosquitoes against the new insecticides? Is it not desirable that the very minute funds of the Organisation should not be used up on this project when countries all over the world could be invited to make their contributions? Why cannot we make some modest contribution to this proposal?

That raises much wider issues. The Organisation is held up more by lack of the necessary technical personnel than by anything else.

asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency will become available.

I am informed that it is likely to be presented towards the end of this month.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the House will be grateful for anything he can do to speed up publication, in view of the fact that we desire to press forward with legislation based upon a real assessment of the facts rather than upon emotional feelings?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I would point out that the end of this month is not very far away.

asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the present rates of the retirement pension of 40s. for a single person and 65s. for a married couple were fixed in April, 1955; that in comparison with the £ sterling being worth 20s. in 1945, these pensions only had a purchasing value of 27s. 3d. and 44s. 3d., respectively, on 25th April, 1955; and, using as the basis of calculation the retail price indices, what would be the relative purchasing value of these pensions today in comparison with 1945.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, sir". On the basis of the Cost of Living Index for the period up to June, 1947, and the Retail Prices Index from that date, the amounts required in 1945 to equal the purchasing value of 40s. and 65s. today were, respectively, 25s. ld. and 40s. 8d. The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that in 1945 the old-age pension was 10s. for a single person and 20s. for a married couple.

In view of the fact that hon. Members and most people in the country agree that old-age pensioners are having, and have had for some years, a very shabby deal, will the hon. Lady not promise to do something to help these people because, as we know, many of them are passing away? Every hon. Member would be only too pleased to vote any money that is necessary. Can the hon. Lady please hold out a little hope that something will be done for these people?

The hon. Gentleman fails to make his case by taking 1945 as a basis when, as I have explained, the pension payable was quite different and was under a different Act of Parliament. Today's pension is still worth much more than was paid in 1945 under the old Act.

Will not the hon. Lady answer my supplementary question?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what losses have occurred in the storage of canned meat by his Department; and what steps he has taken to avoid such losses.

The total loss to date represents about 7¾ per cent. of the total cost of acquisition and maintenance of the reserve of canned meat. The greater part of this was due to the elimination, before the end of State trading in meat, of certain packs unsuitable for long-term storage. The remainder have been placed in humidity-controlled storage which should prevent deterioration from rust.

While welcoming the fact that this canned meat is now subject to better storage, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can explain why it was not in better storage from the beginning? Was it not made quite clear from the beginning that, as these were strategic stocks, they would probably be held for a long time?

There must always be some loss on the turnover of these stocks. At the time that this was bought, meat was not in very plentiful supply, and it was expected that it would be easy to turn the meat over quickly and sell it without appreciable loss. In fact, meat came into much more plentiful supply. At that time there was also a very inadequate amount of humidity-controlled storage. That position has been rectified since.

Is it not a fact that canned meat is regarded in the main as an emergency store? In those circumstances, would it not always be advisable to see that preparation is made for a long period?

I agree, but at the time there was not humidity-controlled storage available for the whole stock. At that time, in 1953, it was very much easier to sell turnover canned meat because the supply of fresh meat was much less than it is today.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of frozen egg his Department still holds; how long such stocks have been held by his Department; how far they have been tested for salmonella infection; and with what results.

My Department still holds about 260 tons of frozen whole egg, nearly all of which is of Commonwealth origin and arrived in this country at the end of 1955 and the beginning of 1956. All the consignments concerned were sampled by the appropriate health authorities and this balance still on hand represents residual stocks, in samples of which some small degree of salmonella infection has been found.

In view of the fact that previous outbreaks of food poisoning have been traced to frozen eggs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that every precaution will be taken before these stocks are released?

I can give that assurance. These stocks will be disposed of under suitable safeguards to public health and in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

How long can salmonella infection remain active in eggs and be capable of producing disease in human beings when the eggs are eaten?

I am afraid that I have not that information, but it is relevant and I will write and give it as well as I can to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take in view of the size of the subsidy arising from the guarantee for eggs.

The guaranteed price for hen eggs was reduced after the last Annual Review by l¾d. per dozen. I cannot, of course, anticipate decisions which must be taken after the next Annual Review when all appropriate factors will be taken into consideration, including the long-term assurances to the industry. I think, however, that it would be right to warn producers now that, unless there is some major change in circumstances between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the guarantee, within the long-term assurances, must be expected. Clearly, in present circumstances, when we are self-supporting in eggs, the Government cannot encourage any further expansion of production—indeed, some reduction from the quantities in prospect is desirable.

Could my right hon. Friend confirm that during the last few months when there has been this prodigious output from the hens of this country the Treasury has actually been subsidising egg production to the tune of more than £1 million a week? Can he say what rearrangements are to be made in the future to enable British producers to export their subsidised eggs to Western Europe, which seems to be a profitable outlet?

The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned was certainly the figure at which the subsidy was running during the peak of the flush, but the peak has passed now and the present figure is very much lower than that. The real explanation is that the British hen. like hon. Members in this House, has recently been performing prodigies of productivity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are egg producers to what extent he wants poultry keepers like me to cut down production? It is no good saying "cut down"; to what extent does he want us to cut down?

I am anxious that poultry keepers should produce as economically as they possibly can and that they should cull their flocks with that object in mind. As regards the export of eggs, that matter is being discussed at present with the representatives of the Danish authorities who are either here or are coming tomorrow.

What was the consumption of eggs over the last financial year compared with the previous financial year? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the loss has largely occurred through the right hon. Gentleman's failure to even out the production of eggs?

We got only one "squiffy" egg per week under your Government.

No, I would not agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said. I agree that there is considerable scope for increased consumption of eggs in this country. In America, consumption of eggs per head is about 50 per cent. higher than in this country. So we have scope. At present prices, eggs are very good value.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of full price fresh milk for the month of April.

It is provisionally estimated to have been 104 million gallons in the United. Kingdom.

In view of the substantial decrease in the consumption of milk, will not the right hon. Gentleman review his price policy? Does he realise how absurd it is to expect the Milk Marketing Board to advertise the sale of milk when he is preventing the sale of milk by his price policy?

The hon. Gentleman is off the beam a bit. Consumption for April is not down on consumption for March. There were thirty days in April and thirty-one days in March. The retail price of milk was reduced on 1st April from 8d. to 7½d.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the figures he has given show a decrease of more than three million gallons compared with April of last year? We have to compare month with month. That is a serious decline. Surely he should recognise it, and recognise also his own responsibility for that decline.

I fully recognise my own responsibility, but again, comparing 1957 with 1956, I would point out that in the current year the whole of the Easter holidays fell in April.