Lords Sitting of 6 February 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF WHITBY ORDER).
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Whitby, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF ETON ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Rural District of Eton, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF HATFIELD ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Rural District of Hatfield, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I would begin by remarking that pensions increase has a long history, but I do not propose to go further back than the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1944, which it is the object of this Bill to replace. That Act was designed, in the words of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson), to concentrate attention on cases of really great hardship, and therefore it operated, in the main, to provide increases in the lower ranges of pensions of a variety of State and municipal servants. Retired members of the Armed Forces were not specifically included in the measure, but the provisions of the Act were applied by the Royal Prerogative to members of The Forces on retired pay. This arrangement applied not only to the increases under Section 1, but also to the increases provided under a further scheme included in the Act which was applicable only to certain retired civil servants.
The 1944 Act was a temporary measure expiring on December 31, 1945. When the Labour Government came into office in the summer of 1945 they had no opportunity to consider the Act in detail before it was due to expire, and it was, in any event, rather soon after the conclusion of hostilities to be considering a permanent measure to take the place of the 1944 Act. Accordingly, provision was made in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act to continue the Act until March 31, 1947. The results of the Government's review of the 1944 Act are embodied in the present Bill. It has taken a little time to prepare, but it must be remembered that this question of pensions increase is a complicated one affecting the pensions not only of civil servants, but also those of the teachers, police, firemen and local government officers, and there have been a number of various interests to be consulted.
The principal effect of the present Bill is to raise certain of the rates of pension increase, and to increase the limits of pension and of total means to which they

459
may apply. These increases under Section 1 of the 1944 Act were restricted to such amount as might bring the total income of the pensioner and his wife, after disregard of the first £52 per annum of income other than pension, up to £300 per annum, or to £225 per annum for the single pensioner without dependants. This Bill raises this limit to £450 per annum or to £350 per annum for the single pensioner without dependants. The Bill also amends the alternative scheme for civil servants and, under Royal Prerogative, for Service officers so as to provide some extension of the scale of increase under Section 2 of the 1944 Act.
The proposals in Clause 1 will mean considerable improvements for the pensioners, taking together the increases under the Act and the similar increases to be granted under the Prerogative instrument to Service pensioners. The total cost of pensions increases will be nearly double, and will amount in the immediate future to about £12,000,000 per annum, of which about £2,500,000 will fall on the rates. I do not think your Lordships will wish to be troubled with other clauses of the Bill at this stage. With these remarks I commend this Bill to you as one designed to meet the post-war difficulties of a very deserving class of the population. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the clear exposition which he has given of this Bill. We should probably all agree that a Bill of this kind is right and necessary. The Act of 1944 recognized the case of pensioners who were in need—I emphasize the words "in need" The test of means which applied in the 1944 Act is, of course, also continued in this Act, and both pieces of legislation are designed to meet cases of real need and hardship. It is reasonable that those cases should be related, broadly speaking, to the cost of living of the people, but, particularly when one is dealing with this class of pension can one lay down a strictly mathematical rule and say that what is technically known as the Cost of Living Index Figure should necessarily govern the rate of increase? There are expenses falling
460
upon these retired persons by virtue of long service which are not governed by the mere cost of living items. Therefore, I feel sure your Lordships will accept this Bill in principle and, indeed, will probably not cavil at its terms. Perhaps this would not be the appropriate assembly in which to do so.
At the same time I think it is fair to say that the financial position of this country does not get noticeably better, and an addition of £12,000,000, whether it falls upon the rates or the taxes—and the great bulk of this is going to fall on the taxes—is no inconsiderable sum which should just be voted sub silentio. Nor can I altogether forbear to contrast the care—I do not dissent from it—with which His Majesty's Government look after and seek not only to maintain but also to increase the incomes of this rentier class of retired public servants, be they national or municipal, with their determination, at the same time, to reduce the incomes of other rentier classes, many of them most deserving people with at least as small—and maybe smaller—means than the people whom we are benefiting under this Bill.
While supporting this Bill, as I do—because, whatever may be said about its precise terms, by and large I accept and I think the House will accept the principle that if we can possibly afford it we should give this increase to pensioners of the public service in real need—I cannot understand how His Majesty's Ministers can come forward and commend a measure of this kind, saying that the people with small incomes are suffering gravely by the increased cost of living, and indeed also by the heightened taxation, while at the same time hundreds of thousands of people are, by Government action, to have their incomes reduced. I trust that when we have to consider these matters the Government will not be unmindful of the direct effect of the proposals which they now commend and which I think we shall accept, and that in logic and in fairness they will try to do like justice to equally deserving classes of the community.
4.15 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am raising a matter this afternoon in respect of which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, has had notice. I am aware that the Bill before your Lordships' House

461
this afternoon has to do with civil pensions, but I understand that the provisions of this Bill have been considered by the Treasury in drawing up the regulations for retired pay and pensions for the Forces. Indeed, that was confirmed by the Secretary of State when he said that these regulations could be extended by Royal Prerogative to the Services. I think it is right that I should say that, although I am a retired officer, I was "axed" from the Navy in the dim and distant past after the First World War; therefore I am not personally affected in any way.
The matter which I wish to bring before your Lordships, and which was originally raised I think in a letter to The Times by a retired naval officer, is concerned with the differentiation between the officer and the other rank or rating—it applies, I believe, to all the Services and not only to the Navy—in assessing post-war pensions. The fact is that, a pensioner from the lower deck with at least six months' war service has his original pension re-calculated at the new rates, and to this is added an increase for the war years while a pensioner, so that actually a man with war service receives a higher pension to-day than a man taking a pension in the future. Retired officers, on the other hand, who were reemployed during the war, get a small increase for their war service, which is added to their retired pay at the old rates. There two added together come to less than the new rates. Therefore, this is a case where the officer, in relation to the lower deck man, is badly treated. That is entirely wrong.
I am not going into details—I do not think that this is the time or place to do so—but it does seem to me that this is an instance where everything is being done for the man on the lower rungs of the ladder, and the man higher up is being less generously treated. I do not think that this is a political matter, but I do consider that it is another example of the levelling down process rather beloved by noble Lords on the opposite Benches. Naval officers, as indeed officers in the other Services, have passed through a gruelling war. They have had tremendous responsibility—they have certainly had greater responsibility and much more to bear than have men on the lower deck—and I think that they
462
should be at least equally well treated. There is another point I would mention. It is quite rightly considered in these days that many of the officers in the Services should come from the ranks. Surely it is no encouragement to a man to take a Commission if he knows that when the time comes to receive a pension he will be less generously treated than the man on the lower deck. I apologize if this is not the time or place to raise this matter, but the Second Reading of this Bill seemed to me to provide the only opportunity for doing so. I. hope that this matter may be looked into.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, with regard to the interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, he was good enough to acquaint: me in advance of his intention to raise this point this afternoon. Therefore I have had the matter examined, and the advice which I have received is that the point raised is quite outside the scope of this Bill. This Bill does not in any way affect the question which the noble Lord has put forward. My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who saw the letter in The Times to which the noble Lord referred, informs me that he will write to the noble Lord and deal with the question at issue. It really does not enter into this Bill in any way.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the Secretary of State.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is just one other thing which I might say. I thank the noble Viscount opposite for his approval of the Bill as a whole. I observed a reference made to another measure which may be coming before your Lordships later on in the Session. I should like to make one small point quite clear. Although the noble Viscount did not say so exactly, I think that he was under the impression that this Bill imposed a charge upon public funds of £12,000,000 a year more than is being imposed at the present time. He probably got that impression from what I said.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought that was what you meant.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No. I will explain precisely what the position is. Your Lordships will understand that this Bill is a substitute for the Act of 1944.

463
The 1944 Act imposed an additional charge on public funds of £6,000,000 or thereabouts. This Bill is not an amendment of the Act of 1944; it is a substitute. Therefore this Bill doubles the amount and, taken as an increase on what existed before 1944, it involves an additional charge of £12,000,000; it does not, however, involve an additional charge of £12,000,000 on what we have been paying since the 1944 Act was passed but only of about half that amount. I thought I ought to make that point clear, and I hope that I have succeeded in conveying the actual facts to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.
4.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is a simple, practical and non-controversial measure which I believe would have been presented to Parliament by any Government that happened to be returned to power after the last General Election. It contains nothing that anyone would say is tainted with Party bias. Its main object is to exempt from driving tests persons who hold, or have held, war-time provisional driving licences, if they can satisfy certain simple requirements relating to their experience and conduct as drivers. The necessity for these exemptions arises out of the war. In 1940, war conditions led to the abandonment of driving tests, and the Ministry of Transport's driving examiners were naturally transferred, or went on their own accord, to duties directly connected with the war effort. Concurrently with the discontinuance of tests, provision was made by a Defence Regulation for applicants to be given provisional licences valid for twelve months at a time, to drive for any purpose. The pre-war requirement that the holder of a provisional licence should display "L" plates and be accompanied by an experienced driver was thus suspended. This made it possible for any holder of a provisional licence to drive without restriction and without having been subject to the pre-war driving test.
464
We could get back to the pre-war position by the simple process of revoking the Defence Regulation and restoring in full the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulation of 1937. This, however, would not be altogether fair. It would mean that everyone who had been driving under this war-time provisional licence would have to be tested, and there are, of course, serious objections to such a course. Many of these wartime drivers have driven thousands of miles during the war under very difficult conditions. Some of them drove with the utmost skill for the civil defence services, in far more arduous circumstances—often circumstances of danger and fatigue—than they would be likely to encounter in ordinary peace-time conditions. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that if their conduct was satisfactory during the whole of their period of war-time driving, it would be unreasonable to regard them now as learners requiring to be tested before being granted a driving licence.
There is, moreover, an administrative difficulty. As there are about 1,500,000 of these drivers it would be impracticable to test them all within a reasonable period of time. Even at the rate of 300,000 or 400,000 a year, it would take something like five years' work of testing before they had all been cleared off. It is therefore proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill—Clause 2 being the most essential of the clauses—that persons who have held a war-time provisional licence for twelve months and have not been convicted during that time of any serious driving offence, shall now be able to obtain a driving licence without having to undergo a test. This is subject to the applicant making his application within a year from the passage of the Bill.
Persons suffering from disabilities likely to make them dangerous as drivers are not affected by these arrangements for exemption, and are obliged, like all new drivers, to pass the test successfully. Those who are not covered by the exemption granted under Clause 2 of the Bill to holders of these war-time licences, and who did not hold a driving licence before the war, are now subject to a driving test. This applies to all fresh applicants for a licence, and Clause 1 of the Bill revokes the Defence Regulation that authorized the war-time provisional licence as a temporary expedient.

465
Clause 3 of the Bill enables the Minister to prescribe by regulation to whom the fee for a driving test shall be paid, and this will replace the pre-war practice of making the payment to the examiner who conducts the test. This change is, I think, eminently desirable as a matter of administrative convenience. Clause 3 also lays down in terms that the money received by a person prescribed by the Minister shall be paid into the Exchequer. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a small and practical step to exempt from the pre-war driving test certain persons who have a good record as a result of their driving during the war, and as a means of improving the administrative machinery connected with the testing of drivers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKSBILL. [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons' Amendment read.
Moved, That the Commons' Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKSBILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The reference is to Bill No. 3.]
  Clause 3, page 4, line 29 leave out ("by statutory instrument").
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, there is a single Amendment upon the Order Paper, and it is what I may describe as of a formal character. It is designed to meet the situation caused by the fact that when the Bill was last before your Lordships' House it was anticipated that the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, would have come into operation. However, that date has been postponed, so that the words to be left out are no longer apt. I beg to move that the Commons' Amendment be accepted.
  Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Nathan.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Power to give elect to Chicago Convention and regulate air navigation.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the preceding subsection and without prejudice to any of the provisions of the Navigation Acts, 1920 and 1936, His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision—
(c) for the licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes, for access to aerodromes and places whore aircraft have landed, for access to aircraft factories for the purpose of inspecting the work therein carried on and for prohibiting or regulating the use of unlicensed aerodromes;
(d) for prohibiting persons from engaging in or being employed in or in connexion with, air navigation in such capacities as may be specified in the Order except in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the Order and for the licensing of those employed at aerodromes in the inspection or supervision of aircraft;
(e) as to the conditions under which aircraft may enter or leave the United Kingdom or go from one part of the United Kingdom to another and, in particular, as to the aerodromes to be used by aircraft arriving in or leaving the United Kingdom;
(h) generally for securing the safety, efficiency and regularity of air navigation and the safety of aircraft and of persons and property carried therein, for preventing aircraft endangering other persons and property and, in particular, for the detention of aircraft;
(q) for exempting from the provisions of the Order or any of them any aircraft or persons or classes of aircraft or persons; and any such Order in Council may make different provision with respect to different classes of aircraft, aerodromes, persons or property and with respect to different circumstances and with respect to different parts of the United Kingdom.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (c), to leave out "the" where that word occurs a second time. The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that I gave certain undertakings on the occasion of the Committee stage of the Bill to endeavour to meet certain wishes expressed by noble Lords opposite. I have been careful to study the suggestions made, and I have endeavoured to fulfil the undertakings which I gave. The

467
Amendment I now move is put down on the Order Paper in fulfilment of one of those undertakings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out the second ("the").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "carried on," to insert: "in relation to aircraft or parts thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is related to the one to which you have just agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("in relation to aircraft or parts thereof").—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking, and this particular Amendment completely meets our point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2) (d), after "or" where that word occurs a second time, to insert:
"(except in the maintenance at unlicensed aerodromes of aircraft not used for or in connexion with commercial industrial or other gainful purposes)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is really part of the Amendments to which reference has already been made. The noble Viscount opposite was anxious that there should be certain freedom allowed to those who owned private aircraft—that they should be able to make small repairs, and so on, without necessarily using for that purpose licensed engineers. It is proposed, therefore, that on the unlicensed aerodromes there should be freedom from any such regulations as regards maintenance of aircraft not used in connexion with commercial, industrial or other gainful purposes; in other words, aircraft used for private purposes only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("or") insert ("(except in the maintenance at unlicensed aerodromes of aircraft not used for or in connexion with commercial industrial or other gainful purposes)").—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for having put down this Amendment, which I think completely meets my point. I would add
468
only one word: the object of the Amendment is to enable the owners of aircraft to maintain them themselves. There is nothing in this Bill, nor could there be, which affects the conditions required for a certificate of airworthiness or the conditions which are laid down in insurance policies for the insurance of an aircraft. In order to obtain a certificate of airworthiness anybody, whether he owns a commercial aircraft or a private aircraft will, of course, have to comply with the conditions laid down by the Board for obtaining it, in the same way as in an ordinary commercial proposition persons desiring to insure their aircraft will have to fulfil the conditions under which the policy is issued. I mention this only because I think it is as well to have it on record that there is nothing here which interferes with the recognized practice of the Air Registration Board or with the ordinary policy and practice of insurance companies. A private owner is not given any new or exceptional rights, nor is he in any way deprived of his rights or his duties with regard to either of those two authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I did not catch what the noble Lord said about unlicensed aerodromes.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this Amendment refers in its terms to private aircraft on unlicensed aerodromes. It is designed to meet the case of a private aerodrome in a private paddock or cricket field.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the next Amendment is merely a verbal alteration to an Amendment which I had already accepted in principle from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("aerodromes") insert ("licensed under the Order").—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (e) and to insert:
"(e) as to the conditions under which, and in particular the aerodromes to or from which, aircraft entering or leaving the United Kingdom may fly, and as to the conditions under which aircraft may fly from one part of the United Kingdom to another;"

469
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, drew attention to paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of this clause. The noble Earl pointed out that conditions might be imposed on aircraft wishing to go—and I emphasize the word "go"—from one part of the United Kingdom to the other, and said that this might well be limited to flying from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. I accept that view, which is incorporated in this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, drew attention to the fact that the paragraph might perhaps be more logically framed by reversing the order of the phrases, and that has been done. I have tried to meet, and I believe I have met, the views that were expressed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out paragraph (e) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the object of the next Amendment is to put into the Bill words which it was understood between us would appear in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("for any of the purposes specified in this paragraph.")—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (q), to leave ant "and any such Order in Council" and insert: "(3) An Order in Council under this section." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that some discussion arose on the question of discrimination and that I offered an assurance that there would be no discrimination as between charter, companies and other operators in like circumstances. The noble Lord opposite pressed me to put this undertaking into the Bill and I expressed some doubt as to whether it would be found possible to find apt words for that purpose. A great deal of trouble has been taken to try and make precise what it is difficult to make precise, because the word "discriminate" is not one which is capable of any precise definition. The attempt has been made,
470
in all good faith, to meet the points raised by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord opposite. I trust they will feel that the Amendments appearing on the Order Paper meet the point which they put so clearly and with such force during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("and any such Order in Council") and insert ("(3) An Order in Council under this section.")—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the word "discriminate" was not capable of definition. That may be true to some extent, but the noble Lord has in these Amendments used that word. What is far more important than the actual words in the Amendments is the spirit which animates them and which reflects the wishes, I believe, of all sides of the House that there should be no discrimination between charter companies and Government corporations when performing a like function. We on this side of the House, defending the last remnants of private enterprise in the world of civil aviation, feel gratified that these private enterprise interests have this additional safeguard, and we thank the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I have already referred to the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, at end insert ("but shall, so far as practicable, be so framed as not to discriminate in like circumstances between aircraft registered in the United Kingdom operated on charter terms by one air transport undertaking and such aircraft so operated by another such undertaking.")—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LINSEED OIL PRICES.
4.40 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hawke.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the price of linseed oil has risen from £65 per ton early in September, 1946, to £200 per ton as from February 2, 1947.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is: "Yes".

PROFITS ON VEGETABLE OIL.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hawke.
[The question was as follows:
To ask whether His Majesty's Government's attention has been drawn to the statement of Senor Miranda of the Argentine Central Bank as reported in the Financial Times of January 3, 1947, that he had recently made a profit of £49,000,000 from a single operation in vegetable oil, and whether, and to, what extent, His Majesty's Government were concerned in that operation.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lord, His Majesty's Government have seen the Press statement referred to. His Majesty's Government are, of course, not responsible for the statements made, or alleged to have been made, by officials of Foreign Governments. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food has recently concluded a contract for the purchase of vegetable oils and oil cake in the Argentine. Under this contract he has obtained 200,000 tons of oils which are subject to allocation by the International Emergency Food Council. As my right honourable friend stated in reply to a recent question in another place, it has not been the policy of His Majesty's Government to publish the terms of these contracts, except by special arrangement with the other party.
472
It can, however, be stated that the Argentine Government have established a sales monopoly, buying from Argentine producers at one price and selling to buyers, whether Government or private individuals, at a very much higher price: I cannot say what profit the Argentine Government will have realized in this way. It is, however, the case that the gross amount of money involved in the purchase made by the Ministry of Food is less than the sum mentioned by the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Can the noble Lord say if the whole quantity purchased is intended for our own use, or are we buying for any other countries?
LORD HENDERSON: As I said, we have bought 200,000 tons, but the actual disposal of that comes within the framework of the operations of the International Emergency Food Council. I am not able to say at this stage whether we shall, or shall not, have the amount available for our own use.
LORD HAWKE: Will any other Government for whom we may have been buying pay us in Argentine pesos or in their own currencies?
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid that I cannot say whether, in buying this stock, we are buying for other Governments. If the noble Lord wants to press the point I am afraid he must put a question on the Order Paper.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before five o'clock.