asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now delaying the appointment of a successor to Sir Alvary Gascoigne as head of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Japan.

The question of appointing a successor to Sir Alvary Gascoigne is under consideration, but I have at present nothing to add to the answer given on the 16th April to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion Division (Mr. Teeling).

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, owing to the vacuum which has been caused by the departure of General MacArthur, and, in addition, because of the negotiations at present going on about a peace treaty, it is of the very greatest importance that a new representative of ambassadorial rank should be appointed forthwith?

We have a senior officer of considerable competence acting for us in Japan. We are considering the matter, but if the peace treaty is concluded at a reasonably early date, there is something to be said for waiting so that we can have the same person as full ambassador when the new regime starts. I will watch the timing of it, because that may not be possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was in the middle of February that Sir Alvary Gascoigne left; that it is rather long to leave this matter; and that the Japanese people will believe that we are literally giving up our position?

I do not think so, because we have a very competent officer there. I will continue to watch the matter.

Quite apart from the question of representation, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the peace treaty. May I ask him to bear in mind that many of us would like to know what is going on about that treaty? We do not want to be committed to something we know absolutely nothing about.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account, in this matter, the very great importance which is attached in a country like Japan to questions of status and rank? Does he not think it necessary, at a time when a treaty is under discussion, that we should be represented in Japan by an officer of the highest rank?

I will keep the point in mind.

In view of the importance of co-ordinating policy in connection with the shipment of materials between Japan and China, is it not very important that we should have an officer of the highest rank in Japan at present?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has in mind to safeguard the rights of British holders of Japanese bonds in regard to the forthcoming peace treaty with Japan.

I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that His Majesty's Government have the whole question of Japan's pre-war debts and her obligations in respect of her sterling loans very much in mind. I am, however, not yet able to state what proposals we have made in this matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of these Japanese bondholders are people in modest circumstances, who have been seriously harassed by the absolute lack of interest for so many years past?

Yes, Sir, I will keep that point in mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the money invested in Japanese bonds was used to finance companies producing strategic materials which were used against us in the last war? In view of the indignation on the part of the Opposition recently about strategic raw materials, will he undertake to cancel these things?

Following what has just been said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a large proportion of these Japanese bonds were raised to help after the Tokyo earthquake?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Departments, other than the Foreign Office, have sent officials to Washington to discuss the forthcoming peace treaty with Japan in recent weeks; what officials and from which Departments have been sent to Tokyo to discuss the peace treaty; and if he will give an assurance that the repayment of pre-war loans and debts are amongst the subjects they are discussing.

The Board of Trade has sent one official to Washington in recent weeks. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "None, Sir." The answer to the third part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the high official to whom he referred earlier was sent to Tokyo with the idea that Sir Alvary Gascoigne would, on his return, represent this country at Washington during the peace treaty talks? In view of the fact that that has not happened, will he make quite sure that in any future negotiations, especially with Mr. Dulles, not only the Foreign Office but the Treasury and all other Departments concerned will take an active part?

We will take whatever is the most suitable course, and see that the Government are adequately served by appropriate officials. I hope hon. Members will not incite us to send too many civil servants to Washington.

I do not want to incite the right hon. Gentleman to do that, but to incite him about this, that the House is very much interested in the Japanese peace treaty. I would ask him to bear in mind that I do not think there has ever been a peace treaty on which less information has been given to the House of Commons than appears to be given in this case.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I think he is a little unreasonable because we have not got very far yet. But there will come a time—[An HON. MEMBER: "Does the right hon. Gentleman know how far he has got?"] We have not got so far that it is right that I should say how far we have got, but there will come a time when the House must be consulted about the matter.