asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement about the negotiations between the Government of Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the negotiations in regard to the supplemental oil agreement which was signed by the company and the Persian Government in July, 1949. The agreement was recently presented for ratification to the Persian Parliament which referred it to its oil commission which, after reporting unfavourably on it in general terms, has now been instructed to review the position further.

His Majesty's Government cannot be indifferent to the affairs of this important British interest. The company's present concession is valid until 1993, and His Majesty's Government are confident that Persia will honour her agreement. As to the supplemental oil agreement, His Majesty's Government regard it as fair and reasonable. But, as the matter is under review in Persia, I cannot say more at present except to express the hope that a satisfactory conclusion will soon be reached.

Is it a fact that, in connection with these negotiations, proposals have been made for the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

No official proposals of which I am aware have been made either to His Majesty's Government or to the oil company.

Do the Government tender advice to the company in their capacity as principal shareholder or only as the Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what States in the Middle East Britain is bound by treaty to defend: to what extent conditions are imposed in such treaties as to the efforts to be made by those countries in self-defence: and whether he is satisfied that such conditions are being observed.

As the reply to this Question is necessarily long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Foreign Office do all they can to settle the existing difficulty between Egypt and Britain, so that we may combine against Communism and keep safe the Suez Canal?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is most concerned about restoring, or maintaining, friendly relations between these countries and peaceful conditions in the whole of the Middle East.

Quite apart from the details which the hon. Gentleman has promised to circulate, can he give an assurance that an effort is being made in this area towards self-defence on the part of the nations concerned?

Yes, Sir. The Government believe that these countries have a lively appreciation of the necessity for strengthening their defences. Within the limits of their economies and avail-abilities they are doing what they can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the southern portion of the Sinai Peninsula, which under the Agreement of 1906 remained part of Turkey and was taken from Turkey by British forces during the 1914–18 war, and has never been formally allocated to Egypt.

The grant of the right to administer this territory was confirmed by a firman issued by the Sultan of Turkey to the Khedive Abbas of Egypt on 8th May, 1892, and was later enshrined in Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government in May, 1906. The eastern frontier of Egypt was never explicitly defined after the. First World War, when Egypt became an independent kingdom and by the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced all rights and titles to territories lying outside her frontiers. Egypt has, however, been in continuous occupation and possession of South Sinai ever since 1922. No Government has ever contested the fact that Egypt exercises effective sovereignty over this area.

Is it not a fact that this area was taken away by us from Turkey, that it has never been given to Egypt and, therefore, belongs to us as much as to anybody else?

Prior to our taking it away from Turkey, it was administered by Egypt, and continued to be administered by Egypt following the Treaties of Peace after the 1914–18 war.

Surely the mere tact of administration does not confer sovereignty.

On a point of order. Before this Question is answered, Sir, might I ask whether, in the case of a Government with which we are in diplomatic relations, it is in order to introduce the word, "Communist," or any other word of the kind, between the words, "Chinese" and "Government." If, in fact, that is in order, would it be equally in order to refer, on the Order Paper, to the "Yugoslav Communist Government," the "Spanish Fascist Government" or the "American Capitalist Government"?

I have always understood that the various Governments were Conservative, Liberal, Communist or something else. One surely is entitled to refer to them as such. This is not a point of order as far as I am concerned.

Has it not always been held, Sir, that in relation to Governments with which we maintain diplomatic relations any kind of adverse comment or reflection of that kind is out of order? Questions which make reflections of that kind are normally refused at the Table. I think that you will appreciate the substance of my point, Mr. Speaker, when I say that, if it once were to be allowed in this case, it could be allowed in a wide variety of other circumstances which would be embarrassing to everybody.

I understand that the hon. Member objects to this Question. He says that the word "Communist" must be offensive, but that is not necessarily so. We have had members of that party in this House and, because they belonged to that party, we have always referred to them as Communist Members, and it was not offensive in any way.

I have not made my point quite clear. I am not suggesting that in everybody's eyes the word "Communist" is offensive, though it certainly is in the eyes of some people. What I am suggesting is that, if one uses a comment of this kind in a Question, which can be variously interpreted in various quarters by various people, then the door is open to a wide variety of such Questions, which may constantly cause embarrassment in the House. It is sufficient, if an hon. Member wants to ask a Question about a Government, to talk about the "Chinese Government" or the "Albanian Government" or any other Government. Once one is permitted to put in an adjectival reference of this kind, the rules which the House has always observed begin to be placed in jeopardy.

I have no time to answer that submission. The hon. Member has now wasted five minutes of the time of the House. Mr. Maclean.

The answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) is "None. Sir."

If the Government are to maintain relations with the Chinese Communists, will they at least take steps to ensure that His Majesty's diplomatic and consular representatives are treated with the respect they deserve?

That was the purpose of the two protests that we have made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the discussions between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government regarding joint action in the event of an attack on Yugoslavia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasingly hostile propaganda both by Press and wireless being carried on by Yugoslavia's neighbours and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against that country, he will consult with other Atlantic Treaty Powers with a view to a guarantee of assistance if Yugoslavia is attacked.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in this House on 15th February.

Will my hon. Friend consider what indirect aid we could give to Yugoslavia in the way of materials and parts of war equipment, if her Government should ask for it?

As I think my hon. Friend is aware, we have advanced credits to Yugoslavia for raw materials and other commodities which are being purchased in this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the Yugoslav frontier is violated, it may be as the result of a border incident or fracas, leading to action and counteraction and to something larger eventually in the initial stages of which Russia may not take part? Can we have an assurance that no guarantee on the part of this country will be given to intervene in all circumstances without prior investigation?

I do not think that a major question of policy such as that can be adequately dealt with by Parliamentary question and answer.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that once we gave a similar guarantee to Poland, and that it did not prevent a war but precipitated it?

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that His Majesty's Government are in consultation with other associated Governments with regard to measures which we might be able to take if, unfortunately, Yugoslavia were to be attacked?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Yugoslavia is a member of the United Nations and that we are, of course, interested in seeing that action which was appropriate to the circumstances should be taken by the United Nations.

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously mean that nothing more than the ordinary action taken through United Nations is being taken, that no particular consultations have taken place?

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the warnings of the kind given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the other day would carry much more weight if we had a proper defence system in the Mediterranean to back them up?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how a saving of £700.000 has been made in the Short Term Aid to Burma, Loan, as shown in sub-head N of the Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate, 1951:

(2) how a saving of £878,110 has been made in the compensation payment to the Burmah Oil Company as shown in sub-head M of the Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate, 1951.

No payment at all on account of these services is expected during the current financial year. Part of the anticipated savings on these services is, therefore, included in the Supplementary Estimates, in order to reduce the net sum payable in respect of this Estimate to £10. Parliament will be requested to re-vote in the 1951–52 Estimates the full amounts provided in the original Estimates.

Will the full original sum ultimately be available to the Burma Government and the Burmah Oil Company respectively?

Yes, Sir: that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of Shifta were incarcerated on 30th November, 1950: and how many are now in prison.

Sixty Shifta were serving prison sentences on 30th November, 1950, and 95 on 17th February, 1951.

What is the period for which these men are now being imprisoned?

I cannot say without notice.

Can my hon. Friend say what are "Shifta"?

The Liberals.

They are armed gangs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money was spent on foreign service broadcasts during 1950: how much has been allocated for the current year: and whether, in view of the urgent need for propaganda to combat Communism, it is intended to increase the amount.

The grant-in-aid to the B.B.C. for overseas services in 1950–51 was £4,685,000. The exact figure for 1951–52 has not yet been finally settled, but is likely to be slightly less.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that it was announced in the Press yesterday that this sum was being reduced? Having regard to the fact that there are, for the first time, faint but hopeful signs of the rot setting in in some of the countries behind the Iron Curtain will he impress upon whoever may be concerned that this sum should be increased this year?

I find it very difficult to understand hon. Members opposite. We are being pressed frequently to reduce expenditure, and here is a case where we are being urged to increase it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this arm of broadcasting is one of the most vital that we can use in our general defence arrangements, and will he give a less flippant answer to the House to a serious question?

We are very well aware of the value of broadcasting, and consider it part of the defence arm, but, in view of the very heavy expenditure on re-armament which will be encountered during the coming year, we have to cut down where it is possible to do so, and this is one of the matters on which expenditure is being reviewed at the present time.

Has not the hon. Gentleman condemned himself out of his own mouth? If he is to spend money on rearmament, he cannot spend it in any better way than in improving the foreign service of the B.B.C.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, not all the expenditure on the B.B.C. can be interpreted as defence expenditure, and it is in those directions where it is not so considered that the reductions will be made.

Will my hon. Friend consider inviting one of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so concerned about the matter, to write a letter to the "Daily Express" about it, in view of that newspaper's remarks this morning?

In view of the Government's determined desire to settle our differences with Communist Russia by discussion, does the Under-Secretary not think that these broadcasts should be increased very considerably indeed, as part of the defence programme? Further, if the Government cannot afford to spend enough money, will they cut down on the money spent on the Central Office of Information in propagating their own ideas, which no Minister of the Crown in his right mind would support?

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Under-Secretary's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform and to China: when these objects were laid down: and in what way they have been modified since that time.

The objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas broadcasts result from the licence and agreement of 29th November. 1946, between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Corporation shares the view of His Majesty's Government that the national interest requires overseas broadcasts to give a true account of world events, and, in particular, of British policy and practice in both national and international affairs. This criterion applies with especial force to the particular services about which the hon. and gallant Member inquires. There is no document defining the objects of these services. Consultation and collaboration with the appropriate Departments is a continuous and daily process, and account is taken of all developments affecting the national interest.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best B.B.C. broadcasts to the Communist-dominated countries are those which clearly depart from the directive to which he has referred? In view of the great change in the international situation, does he not think that it is about time that a new directive was given?

It is not a question of a directive, but of consultation between the Departments concerned. To talk in terms of a directive is not accurate.

In arriving at his decision on policy, do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues take into account the monitoring scripts of all broadcasts that are coming from the Communist countries, particularly in the Far East, where very good guidance as to what is most effective can be obtained?

Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. runs its own monitoring service, which is of inestimable value.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the existing B.B.C. broadcasts, such as "Soviet View" and "Soviet Affairs" are, in fact, subtle Communist propaganda, and that there are far too many fellow-travellers in the B.B.C.?

If there are, they seem to have very little effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that no proper machinery exists to coordinate British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform, to the Baltic States or to China, with United States Government broadcasts to these countries or with broadcasts of Free Europe Radio: and if he will take urgent steps to set up suitable machinery.

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government collaborate closely with the United States Government in matters of broadcasting policy. In this way, there is adequate co-ordination, and no additional machinery is necessary. Radio Free Europe is a non-Governmental organisation with which no direct liaison has been found necessary.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Radio Free Europe has the open and acknowledged blessing of the State Department? In those circumstances, since it is broadcasting to the Communist-dominated countries of Eastern Europe, how can he possibly say that no liaison is necessary?

As I have said, we collaborate and consult with the United States Government in these matters, but Radio Free Europe is not operated or administered in any way by the United States Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is wholly misinformed, that some liaison does already take place, and that what I am asking for is proper liaison?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that "The Voice of America" broadcast non-stop for 48 hours and in 28 languages explaining very fully our reply to the Soviet Note? Did we know about that, and what they were saying?

Yes, Sir. I have already explained that we have consultation and collaboration with the State Department, which operates "The Voice of America," and that we have a monitoring service which monitors all broadcasts sent out from all stations.

Has my hon. Friend any evidence to indicate that these broadcasts are making any difference at all?

Is the Minister satisfied, beyond any possible doubt, that there is allocated to the B.B.C. a wholly adequate number of wavelengths for this most vital purpose?

Allocation of wavelengths is made according to the Copenhagen Plan. Unfortunately, under that Plan, we are in difficulties with certain wavelengths which cover Germany, and Eastern Germany in particular, and discussions in that respect are now going on.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) in the ballot for the Motion for the Adjournment, so that I can raise this subject again.

asked the Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the Government's attitude to the proposed protocol for the amendment of the Statute of Europe approved by the Committee of Seven in Paris in December, 1950.

The protocol to which my hon. Friend refers is one of many proposals for the amendment of the Statute of the Council of Europe which are being discussed in Paris this week by a committee of Government officials. All these proposals, which will subsequently have to be considered by the Committee of Ministers, are the subject of confidential discussion between Governments, and I regret that it would not be proper to disclose the attitude of His Majesty's Government to any of them at the present stage.

May we take it that, in view of the far-reaching nature of some of these proposals, no decision will be taken by the Government until the House has been consulted?

I cannot give that undertaking. This matter will go before the Committee of Ministers. The views of the House are known, to a large extent, on the whole question of the Council of Europe, as a result of the debate which we had some weeks ago.

Will my hon. Friend resist with all the means in his power this ingenious attempt at back door pressure?

To the extent that the proposal touches on the whole concept of the Council of Europe and suggests changing the Consultative Assembly from a consultative to a legislative body, the Government are opposed to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the text of the Pleven plan for a European Army as presented to the Conference on European Defence now taking place in Paris.

No, Sir. It is for the French Government, who have presented the plan, to publish it if they so wish.

As considerable extracts have appeared in the American Press would it not be for the convenience of the House to have a copy in the Library?

It may be that that copy was not marked "Top Secret," as was the copy I have seen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the landing of South Korean marines supported by a naval bombardment from American ships at Wonsan, 88 miles north of the 38th Parallel: and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in view of their official pronouncement that the 38th Parallel ought not to be crossed again without full consultation with the United Nations, and, in particular, with those Member States whose Forces are fighting in Korea.

Yes, Sir. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in the House on 12th February, His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Government on questions connected with the 38th Parallel.

Will the Minister bear in mind that on the last occasion when the United Nations troops reached the 38th Parallel, the offer of negotiations then was prejudiced by the advance permitted to the South Koreans, and will he keep that in mind in view of the landing now of South Koreans north of the 38th Parallel?

I cannot quite accept the interpretation put forward by my hon. Friend of the situation which arose at that time. Before crossing the 38th Parallel, an appeal was made by the United Nations, General MacArthur, and by members of the American and British Governments, for a surrender of the North Koreans or for negotiations, but there was no response.

Is not the question of the crossing of the 38th Parallel at. present governed by the United Nations' Resolution of 7th October, 1950? Does the Prime Minister's statement mean that His Majesty's Government are going to seek a modification of that Resolution?

The United Nations' Resolution stands, but statements have subsequently been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, by President Truman, and by General MacArthur. For the sake of clarity, I would point out that the present position is this. It has been made clear that where, for local tactical reasons, it may be necessary to make small incursions over the 38th Parallel, that would be considered a military matter, but that any substantial crossing of the Parallel would be a political matter on which consultation would take place.

In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement, could my hon. Friend undertake that no British Forces will be allowed, except in the purely tactical sense to which he refers, beyond the 38th Parallel until agreement on the political aspects of the matter has been reached with our Allies?

The operations in Korea are by United Nations Forces, and action taken there will be a matter for the U.N. command representing all the nations providing the troops and materials for those Forces.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a report which has appeared today that His Majesty's Government have ordered British naval forces to cease operations north of the 38th Parallel is correct or incorrect?

I have no knowledge of that.

Can my hon. Friend say whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office were consulted, or even informed, before this action was taken north of the 38th Parallel?

No, Sir. The Press has described this as a raid, and we have no reason to believe that it is anything other than a raid. The troops have since been withdrawn.