asked the Attorney-General what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the recommendations on the law of domicile contained in the First Report of the Committee on Private International Law.

This Report was published only on 18th February and consideration of the far-reaching changes proposed in it is bound to take some time.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he recognises the far-reaching consequences of these proposals, so may we have an assurance at least in connection with the status of married women that the Government will give it early attention?

I cannot give any undertaking as to when it will be dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests he has made against the interference to which British ships have been subjected in United States ports whilst engaged in trade with China with the full authority of the United Kingdom Government and in accordance with decisions of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British ships engaged on voyages with the full authority of the United Kingdom Government, and in conformity with the decisions of the United Nations, have been and are being shadowed and subjected to interference by the United States of America; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of the United States of American regarding the shadowing of British vessels engaged on the Far East trade by units of the United States Navy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the Report of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, which has been sent to him, protesting against the placing by the United States Government or armed guards on British merchant ships while in port and detailing naval cutters to shadow them from one United States port to another; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received concerning interference by United States naval vessels with British merchant ships trading in Far Eastern Communist ports; and whether he will make a statement.

Hon. Members will be aware that the 1953–1954 Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom referred to certain restrictions which had been imposed on British vessels by the United States authorities. Though the Chamber do not make this clear in their Report, the restrictions in question are of two kinds and were imposed at different times for different purposes.

First of all the United States authorities have, since October, 1950, applied special security measures to ships arriving in United States ports directly or indirectly from Soviet or other Communist-controlled ports. These measures include an inspection of the ship and its surveillance by the United States Coast Guard while it remains in United States territorial waters.

Since these measures came into force, that is October, 1950, Her Majesty's Government have been informed of six cases in which these supervisory measures have been applied to British merchant vessels. In answer to our representations the United States authorities have assured us that these measures are part of the general security arrangements in force in the United States which are applicable without distinction or discrimination to American ships as well as to those of other nations. They have emphasised that the supervisory arrangements are unconnected with the trading intentions of the vessels concerned and they have given an assurance that ships will not be subjected to any unnecessary delays. Her Majesty's Government will continue to watch this situation and representations will be renewed whenever necessary.

As regards the shadowing of vessels on passage between American ports, representations were made by Her Majesty's Embassy in June and July, 1953, and there has been no recurrence of this practice since then in respect of British vessels.

Secondly, the Department of Commerce in June, 1953, issued supplementary regulations controlling the supply of ships' stores, supplies and equipment. These regulations placed special restrictions on the supply of bunkers to ships which had traded with, or intended to trade with in, any Far Eastern Communist port, or Macao. They go beyond what Her Majesty's Government think necessary to give effect to the resolution of the United Nations regarding strategic trade with Communist China. We have therefore carefully watched the application of these regulations to British ships. In only three cases have British ships encountered some difficulty in obtaining bunkers, but licenses were granted after representations by Her Majesty's representative at Washington. In one further case licenses for spare parts have been refused. This case is stall under discussion with the United States authorities.

While, on the whole, we are gratified by the action that the Government have taken in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that neither the Government nor the British mercantile marine will in this respect act as supinely as the American armed forces have had to act in response to the allegations and attacks of Senator McCarthy?

I really do not think that that question is relevant or particularly tactful. However, it is quite clear that we have been fairly treated. There have been only six cases since October, 1950, and in all of them we have received satisfactory assurances. There has been no shadowing between American ports since our representations were made. The hon. Gentleman will notice that the instances have been minor and satisfactorily settled. I only hope that all international problems will be equally satisfactorily resolved.

In view of the close relations between the two countries, did the United States Government keep the Government informed of the action they were taking?

We made representations, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we have received a very satisfactory response.

In view of the importance of doing everything possible to increase East-West trade, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the speech by the Prime Minister last week on this subject is extensively circulated by British Information Services in America?

I am sure it will be, but I do not see how that is even remotely concerned with the answer I have just given.

It is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British motor vessel "Sevro," detained by the Spanish authorities on 26th January, has now been released; and if he will make a statement.

I am informed that the master of the "Sevro" has been found guilty of an infringement of the Spanish law relating to contraband and has been fined 800,000 pesetas. The ship's cargo of tobacco and lubricating oil has been seized and the vessel is held pending the payment of the fine. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has been instructed to ask the Spanish authorities for a full report on the Spanish court's proceedings.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware -that the Spanish authorities claim that they can seize any vessel under 100 tons in the Straits, even if it is carrying Her Majesty's mails? Can he say on what ground of international law that claim is based? Can he give an assurance that in future ships carrying Her Majesty's mail will not be intercepted in this high-handed way?

I understand that it is accepted in international law that a State has the right to apprehend contraband goods passing through its territorial waters. In this particular case Her Majesty's Ambassador has asked for a full report from the Spanish Government, and I should prefer to suspend judgment until we have the report.

Is it not a rather extraordinary thing that we have to have Questions dealing with interference with shipping going to China, interference with shipping going to Spain, interference with shipping going through the Suez Canal? Do these foreign Governments know that there is a Tory Government in power here?

The hon. Gentleman has no reason to be proud of the record of the Labour Government so far as these matters are concerned. As the hon. Gentleman may have observed from the answer to the last Question, the Government have taken energetic measures, which have received a satisfactory answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information with regard to the exclusion of the British Honorary Vice-Consul in Cadiz, Spain, from the hearing of a case against British subjects in a Spanish court.

No, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has requested an explanation of the reasons for the exclusion of Mr. Hempson from the hearing of the case against the British ship "Sevro."

Will my hon. Friend make a statement when he receives the Ambassador's report, or would he prefer another Question to be put down?

I could tell my hon. Friend when we have the Ambassador's report, and then he would know when to put down a Question, if he would like to do. so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this treatment of our Vice-Consul lends colour to the fears of Gibraltar merchants that the Spanish authorities are determined to make things difficult for British ships based on Gibraltar? Will my hon. Friend bear that fact very much in mind?

I would prefer to await Her Majesty's Ambassador's report. The Vice-Consul at Cadiz, on instructions, sought and obtained permission from the court authorities to be present at the hearing, and I await Her Majesty's Ambassador's report on why he was not allowed to be present after all.

While these discourtesies are being made by the Spanish authorities, why do we continue to make courtesy visits, including that of the mine sweeper "Apollo" with Rear-Admiral Currey last week-end? Would it not be better to discontinue these courtesy visits until the Spanish decide to behave courteously?

I do not think that because certain discourtesies have been suffered by Her Majesty's Vice-Consul we should also be discourteous. A perfectly good answer was given by my right hon. Friend last week on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as recent events have shown that the passport system does not hinder undesirable characters either leaving or entering the country but does have a nuisance value for law-abiding people, if he will consider raising the matter in the proper channels with a view to the abolition of passports.

I do not accept the suggestion that passports have no value. They are an essential document of identity for British subjects traveling abroad and a necessary part of the United Kingdom system of control of aliens. Her Majesty's Government have no present intention of proposing the abolition of passports.

Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that many people are of the opinion that passports serve no useful purpose for the good and are no deterrent to the bad? Will he state whether any person can leave and enter this country without a passport?

Any British subject can leave this country without a passport, but I know of no country where he is likely to be received if he arrives without a passport. As to the opinion which the hon. Gentleman expressed, I would remind him that the Geneva Conference on Passport and Frontier Formalities recommended that the general abolition of the passport for purposes of foreign travel is not feasible at present.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is largely a matter for international negotiation and agreement, and will he continue to give his encouragement to the Council of Europe Assembly and other organisations which are trying to simplify these formalities, including the abolition of passports?

We shall do all we can to promote the simplification of passport formalities.

Has any action been taken to ensure that undesirable persons do not obtain British passports on the submission of false particulars? Ronald Chesney had four passports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the future programme for the Overseas Information Services.

As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.

Her Majesty's Government have considered the Report and recommendations submitted to them by the Committee on the Overseas Information Services, for which they are much indebted to Lord Drogheda and the members of his Committee. These recommendations deal with the long-term future of the Overseas Information Services— that is, their scale, and the balance which should be struck between one information service and another in different areas of the world. The expansions recommended by the Committee would be spread over a period of three to five years, and at the end of this period the additional cost would rise to some £1,800,000 a year. In addition, the Committee advocated further considerable expenditure upon capital development in the field of broadcasting.

These are substantial sums, and Her Majesty's Government do not feel able in the present financial situation to accept commitments on this scale without further examination. This examination is continuing, and my right hon. Friend hopes to make the results of it known later in the year. Meanwhile, he will arrange for a summary of the Drogheda Report to be issued as a White Paper.

In the meantime, Her Majesty's Government have reached a decision regarding the level of activity of the information during the financial year 1954–55. This will involve provisions in the estimates for the following:

1 Strengthening the information ser vices in South-East Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Europe.

2 Some reinforcement of information services in the Commonwealth, and

3 The establishment of three regional information offices in the Colonial Empire.

Changes will be made in the organisation of British Council work in certain European countries, and the savings thus obtained will be used to reinforce other services of the Council. The Council will be withdrawn from Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon as soon as arrangements can be made. There will be no change in the present pattern of external broadcasting, until Her Majesty's Government have completed their examination of the long-term issues. Finally, the current levels of activity of the information services will, except in a few minor instances, not be reduced to cover rising costs. These will be met in part by deferring a certain amount of capital expenditure and in part by the provision of new money.

The net additional cost of these arrangements will be approximately £330,000 in the financial year 1954–55.

While thanking the Undersecretary of State for that reply, which it has taken many months to draw from him, may I ask whether he does not think that this shows that the criticism levelled at the cuts in Overseas Information Services by the Opposition some two years ago were correct, because of the recommendations of the Drogheda Committee that they should be increased? May I further ask whether the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that the B.B.C. services will be maintained, despite any increase in costs and in the jamming of their services? In view of the recommendation of the Drogheda Committee, why has it been decided that the B.B.C. alone of the Overseas Information Services does not receive any increase? It was the B.B.C. that suffered most when cuts were last applied.

I cannot agree that the B.B.C. has suffered most from the general cuts made in the information services over the last seven or eight years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they have had by far and away the lion's share of the Overseas Information Services budget and the last cuts made by Her Majesty's Government did not affect the B.B.C. at all. As to the level of activities, that will be maintained. Anti-jamming activities will go on without reducing the existing level of activities.

As to the time taken to produce an answer to this Question, the hon. Gentleman will realise that £1,800,000 of the taxpayers' money is a considerable sum for Her Majesty's Government to decide to devote over a period of three to five years. The Drogheda Committee spent a considerable amount of time in examination before reaching a conclusion, and I do not think there has been any undue delay on the part of the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to keep in mind that although at first sight this may seem a very considerable cost, relatively, if it will help to maintain peace, it may prove to be small, and less than the cost of a big bomber?

That is certainly one of the considerations to be borne in mind in this further examination.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the six-man Parliamentary Delegation which recently visited Burma and Indonesia was unanimous in thinking that there was a great opportunity for an increase in this type of work in South-East Asia and that it is welcome to hear that there will be such an increase? Will special attention be given to the export of British books to this area, where they are particularly valuable and needed?

Yes, Sir. That is one of the supply services of the British Council which we hope to be able to strengthen by re-deploying the savings from the withdrawing of certain British Council services from Western Europe.

With regard to the withdrawal of the Council from Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon, why was this decision taken by the Government before they had consulted the volunteer workers—including some hon. Members opposite —who formed the Executive Committee of the British Council? Was not this gross discourtesy on the part of the Government?

I do not think it was gross discourtesy on the part of the Government at all. This decision was taken, I understand, as a result of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations going into the question thoroughly because of what he found when he went on his Commonwealth tour last year. He decided that the work could be done more economically by a smaller staff.

As one of those who has some doubts about the merits of the British Council, may I ask why we are to have the Drogheda Report in summary? Is it not more desirable that we should see all of it?

I do not think that is possible. There are certain security considerations to be taken into account, but I can promise that it will be a full summary.

Without entering into the merits of the Matter, may I ask if the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon were consulted about the proposal to withdraw the services of the British Council from their countries?

From memory, I believe that is so, but I cannot say definitely.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reasons for the withdrawal of Her Majesty the Queen's Exequatur from Senor Leopoldo Alguero, Consul-General of the Republic of Panama in Belfast.

The decision to advise the withdrawal of the Queen's Exequatur from Senor Leopoldo Alguero as Consul-General of Panama at Belfast was taken in the light of an official report regarding his association with a recent case involving the attempted smuggling of watches into the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have informed the Panamanian Government that they can no longer regard him as a person in whom they can continue to repose confidence as the consular representative of his country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of introducing self-government in the Sudan; and to what extent friction in the Sudanisation Committee will delay the procedure.

In accordance with the Self-Government Statute, 'the Governor-General certified that 9th January last was the "appointed day" on which the self-government institutions under the statute had been duly constituted in accordance with its provisions. The hon. Member is, no doubt, referring to the friction which appears to have developed in the Governor-General's Commission about the setting up of the Sudanisation Committee. The Sudanisation Committee has now been formally appointed but, so far as I know, has not yet met.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has been able to recover the compensation awarded by the International Court against Albania for the murder of British sailors in the Corfu Channel.

No, Sir. The present position is that the gold should come to the United Kingdom, unless Italy can establish a better claim before the International Court. The Italian Government have, however, contested the jurisdiction of the International Court.

Does this case not prove conclusively that a wrongdoer can snap his fingers at the International Court and its decisions, while if a person who is wronged takes the law into his own hands he commits a breach of international law?

I do not think this case proves the hon. Gentleman's contention. It has not yet been adjudged by the Inter national Court.

Is it not open to us to take the case to the International Court under the optional clause? Do Her Majesty's Government intend to do that?

Yes, Sir; the matter is now before the International Court. The Italian Government have contested the Court's competence to adjudge it.

Have the Italian Government contested this course in spite of the fact that they agreed that the disposal of the gold should go to arbitration in the first place, and that if they wished to appeal against the arbitrator's decision the case should go to the International Court? Was not that the original agreement when the matter was taken to arbitration?

Speaking from recollection, I think the hon. Gentleman is right, but the fact is that the Italian Government are now contesting the jurisdiction of the International Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Seven-Power Conference to co-ordinate defence arrangements in Africa, due to begin on 11th March.

A conference which was held at Nairobi on the initiative of the United Kingdom and South African Governments in August, 1951, undertook a study of the facilities available for communications and the movement of military forces and supplies between the South of Africa and -the Middle East in time of war. The French and United Kingdom Governments have now convened a second conference to undertake a study covering the Western Territories of Africa South of the Sahara, which were not included on the previous occasion. This conference will open at Dakar on 11th March. In addition to the inviting Powers, there will be representatives from Belgium, Liberia, Portugal and South Africa and a delegation representing the four British West African Territories. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the United States are sending observers.

Am I to understand from the Foreign Secretary's reply that the ambit of the conference is restricted to questions of communications?

Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. It is a follow-up of the conference which the late Government set on foot in August, 1951.

Will the conference consider the possibility of a trans-African road, which might serve a great strategic and economic purpose?

It will certainly consider transport and communications, and I will see that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is made available.

Mr. Speaker, would it not save time if the Opposition could decide who is going to be the next Foreign Secretary, so that only one of them need ask questions?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the United States Government about the security risks involved by the continued residence of 13 British tenants in a United States Embassy building in Grosvenor Square.

None, Sir.

Has the Under-Secretary seen the charges that were made before the United States Appropriations Committee that the presence of these 13 citizens constituted a grave security problem, and is he aware that charges of treason have been made against the ex-President of the United States, that the Chief Justice-designate has been described as a security risk, and senior officers of the United States Army, including the Minister of War, have been obscenely humiliated as Communist dupes? Could my hon. Friend tell our United States friends that this sort of thing does not do their cause very much good over here?

That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer that no representations of the kind suggested in his Question have been made.

Does my hon. Friend regard the introduction of United States domestic affairs into our discussions and attempts to indulge in recriminations of this kind as wholly deplorable?

Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests were made at the Berlin Conference, or subsequently by the French Government to Her Majesty's Government, to assume additional military commitments in Europe before the European Defence Community treaties are submitted to the French Parliament for ratification.

The French Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they would welcome assurances about the maintenance of United Kingdom and United States forces on the Continent. No new requests were made at the Berlin Conference, nor subsequently.

May we take it that no pressure will be brought on the French to ratify the E.D.C. by any additional British commitments in Europe which have not first been approved by this House?

There is no question of pressure being brought on anybody. Our French friends have asked us a number of questions, and we are in conversation with them. If, as a result of these discussions, we should draw closer together, I should think that that is something that the whole House would welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government by the German Government in respect of the financial obligations of British Service men to assist in the maintenance of German illegitimate or legitimate children of whom they are fathers.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are carrying on negotiations with the American Government regarding rather similar circumstances in this country and, in view of that, could he not inquire of the German Government whether they have any representations to make on this matter to Her Majesty's Government?

I have no doubt that if the German Government feel it necessary to make representations on this matter, they will do so, but they have not done so.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that some months ago this matter was being openly espoused in the German Press and elsewhere, and even in this House, and can he really say that no contact has been made with the German Government on this matter?

I am not responsible for what comments are made in the German Press. The hon. Gentleman asked me what representations had been received; no representations have been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of a small number of cases where members of United States forces in this country have contracted debts which they have left unpaid on returning to the United States of America and have thus left the creditors without redress, whether he will seek to make an arrangement with the United States authorities to secure the payment of such debts.

No, Sir. I would, however, add that, provided the man concerned is still in the forces, and provided the debt is admitted or has been reduced to judgment, it is always open to the creditor in this country to seek the assistance of the U.S. Service authorities here or in the United States in obtaining satisfaction.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has been done in some cases, and that, although I am sure the military authorities are anxious to help, they confess they can do nothing because the defaulter has gone back to America and sometimes cannot be traced but, where he can be traced, simply refuses to pay? And because this is a cause of friction between some Americans and some British subjects, to heal that, will he not look further into this question?

I do not think that I can give such an undertaking. It is a difficult question, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that wilful failure to pay an undisputed debt, or a debt which has been reduced to judgment in this country, is an offence under U.S. military law and that anyone who is still a member of the U.S. military forces can be subject to disciplinary action if he still refuses to pay that debt.

But where they have ceased to be members of the U.S. forces?

Not where they have ceased their service, but Her Majesty's Government would lend assistance where necessary. These are private matters, but there is no difference of principle here between an American serviceman going back to America without paying a debt and any other foreigner who leaves this country without paying a debt.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the reunification of Korea following the holding of free elections in North and South Korea.

Yes, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States, the French and other Governments who were associated with the operations in Korea accept or agree with this policy?

There can be no doubt about that. It was all set out by the United Nations in a General Assembly Resolution on 28th August last, which said that the objectives of the United Nations remain the achievement by peaceful means of a unified and democratic Korea under a representative form of government, and full restoration of national peace and security in the area. That was subscribed to by all of us.

May I say that we welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that we shall win the next election? May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the Berlin formula on Korea means that the Russians have also accepted the principle that Korea shall be independent and united?

In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, I cannot prevent the right hon. Gentleman from indulging in wishful thinking. As regards the second part, I should like to examine that, if I may.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as a result of the events of the last few days in Egypt, what further instructions he is giving to the British negotiators upon future arrangements in Suez.

It is too early yet to say what, if any, effect the recent developments in Egypt may have upon our negotiations. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as set out in my speech in this House of 17th December last.

Do not the events of the last few days demonstrate the chronic instability of the Revolutionary Council in Cairo and the military junta that is dominating it; and in those circumstances will any agreement that may be reached after these protracted negotiations be worth the paper it is written on?

There is certainly evidence of instability in Cairo, but it still remains the fact that it is in the general and Allied interest to get a settlement on Anglo-Egyptian issues if we can. I hope the House will not ask me to limit our diplomatic activity to those governments which have a stable parliamentary situation because, if so our progress is likely to be somewhat limited.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, as a matter of interest, when the answer to this Question was prepared, and which are the "few days" referred to in the Question?

As far as I am concerned, this answer was prepared half an hour ago.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if it is true, as announced on the tape, that the Head Inspector of Police in Khartoum was murdered this morning, and whether he has any news from there about the Minister of State?

I wish my right hon. and gallant Friend would ask me a Private Notice Question. This is a question of a slightly different character, and I am reluctant to make sudden statements on matters of importance in the House without notice. I have had a number of messages from Khartoum, but they require confirmation, and I should be reluctant to give information to this House which might afterwards be found to be untrue. I only know that a state of emergency has been declared by the Governor-General in Khartoum and that the opening of Parliament arranged for this afternoon has, in consequence, been postponed.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—

Have I your permission, Sir, to put a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend?

All in good time.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the instability of the Egyptian Government, does he think it might be useful to put off further negotiations on this matter until there have been free elections in both countries?

I think the hon. Gentleman can have great confidence in Her Majesty's present advisers.

Does the right hon. and gallant Member desire to ask a supplementary question to the Question on the Paper?

I wanted your guidance, Sir, as to whether I might ask a Private Notice Question on this important matter either today or tomorrow.

No, I am afraid that would be irregular. I have had no notice of that.

asked the Minister of Supply what action he is taking to shorten the time required for the development of new types of Service aircraft.