asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the strength of the armed forces under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation compares with that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It is not the practice of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to disclose the detailed strength of its armed forces, but I would remind my hon. Friend of recent statements by the Supreme Allied Commander that our military effectiveness in Europe is about three times as strong today as it was in 1951. If my hon. Friend will compare this estimate with the figures given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 10th May, he will find this is not an unsatisfactory increase, though much remains to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the decision to expel two Soviet Embassy personnel from this country.

I informed the Soviet Ambassador on 7th May that two Assistant Military Air Attachés at the Soviet Embassy, Major Pupyshev and Major Gudkov, had abused their diplomatic status in the United Kingdom by attempting to engage in espionage and that Major Pupyshev had been delected in a blatant attempt to suborn a serving officer of Her Majesty's Forces. I am glad to add that Major Pupyshev's attempt was unsuccessful and that the British officer whom he tried to suborn behaved in an exemplary manner. Major Gudkov made at least three attempts to recruit agents.

While complimenting my right hon. and learned Friend on the promptness and the expedition with which this problem was handled by the Foreign Office, may I ask whether he is aware that a powerful fifth column exists in the shop stewards movement of this country? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that our security measures are such that Communist shop stewards in this country have not access to secret processes or information which would be of value to the Soviet Union?

I think that the question of what Communists in this country have or have not access to is not a matter for the Foreign Office. As to the category of persons referred to in the Question and answer, I think that the security services did a very good job of work.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence that shop stewards are predominantly Communists?

He did not say that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Indian Government to his communication regarding Indian support for a settlement in Indo-China.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on 10th May and to replies given to him and other hon. Members on this point on 13th May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

How much longer is this matter going to be kept secret by the Government? In view of the fact that the Indian Government themselves have issued a statement on this question and have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to underwrite any settlement in Indo-China which is not agreed by all the parties, what is the reason for keeping it dark?

If the Indian Government have already stated that position publicly, nothing is being kept dark. What Her Majesty's Government object to is that when we are being constantly urged to engage in consultations particularly with the Asian members of the Commonwealth, we should be expected to make public the nature of the conversations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia regarding the formation of a regional security organisation for South-East Asia.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has informed the House, these diplomatic exchanges are confidential and if the confidence were not respected the exchanges would be seriously impaired. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to maintaining a full and frank exchange of views with the Asian countries concerned, especially on matters concerning the security of South-East Asia, and I am sure that hon. Members would not wish Her Majesty's Government to remove the necessary basis of confidence which makes such an exchange of views possible.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman capable at all of giving a plain answer to a plain question? Will he tell the House whether any of these countries have made any proposal for the formation of a South-East Asia military security organisation?

I am not prepared to tell the House what confidential proposals have or have not been made.

Is it not the case that none of them have made any such proposals?

It is certainly untrue that these countries have failed to answer with regard to the question of South-East Asia security.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the informal discussions with the Governments of the United States of America and other countries concerning an interim collective security arrangement for South-East Asia.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making to Questions Nos. 40 and 44.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Security Council of the United Nations has completed its consideration of the complaint by the Israeli Government in regard to the illegal stopping of ships by Egypt in the Suez Canal; and if he will make a statement.

It became clear during the course of the debate in the Security Council that Egypt was not prepared to comply with the Council's 1951 Resolution calling upon her to terminate her restrictions on the passage of international shipping and goods through the Suez Canal. A further draft Resolution calling upon her to comply with the 1951 Resolution was accordingly introduced by New Zealand and put to the vote on 29th March. Voting was eight to two in favour of the Resolution (with one abstention) but as the Soviet Union voted against, the Resolution failed to carry.

If the Egyptian Government refuse to carry out the 1951 Resolution and defy the United Nations Organisation in this respect, is no action of any kind to be taken against them?

I quite agree that the refusal to comply with the Resolution of the United Nations in this question is a very serious matter. When the blockade appeared likely to be extended before Christmas last year the matter was again taken before the United Nations, and it is a fact that the extensions have not since been carried out.

Has Russia changed her viewpoint on this matter since 1951?

In 1951 she certainly did not vote against the Resolution.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the question is based not so much on the Israeli position as on the fact that the Suez Canal is an international highway and has been recognised as such for a long time?

I quite appreciate the position.

Is it not the case that the Egyptian Government had obligations in this matter long before U.N.O. came into being? Are not they in breach of their solemn contract?

In the view of Her Majesty's Government they have no legal right to take this action.

Is the House to take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that the Egyptian Government took a different view of their legal obligations prior to the inception of the United Nations? If there is a dispute as to the proper interpretation of the treaties, are not steps open to us to have the dispute resolved?

It is quite correct that the Egyptian Government adopt a legal view of the position quite irrespective of that of the United Nations. The matter to which the hon. Member refers certainly bears consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many nations have now ratified the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now ratify the covenant.

Forty-three States have now ratified or acceded to the Convention on Genocide. As regards Her Majesty's Government's position, I have nothing to add to the statement which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) on 11th November.

Is the right hon. and: learned Gentleman aware of the fact that our attitude in this matter is regarded as an unsatisfactory one and is, in effect, delaying the carrying into effect of a convention of which we approved? Will he say when he proposes to consider the legal' position, so that, even if technical reservations have to be introduced, we can accept the Convention with such reservations?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I think that we have made our attitude towards the crime of genocide perfectly clear by performance as well as words. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, we do not believe in adhering to a convention unless we are prepared to bring in all the necessary legislation to define precisely the crimes which are referred to. That legislation is somewhat complicated, and there is also the question of finding time for it in the legislative programme.

But the right hon. and learned Gentleman said a year ago, and several years ago, that this matter was under consideration. Is it not time that this terrible crime was banned officially by us? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce the necessary legislation?

There are many difficulties involved. One is that it extends the number of crimes to which the death penalty applies, and it is a question whether it is desirable to do that when steps are being taken to consider the whole question of the death penalty. The matter is one of considerable complication.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the agreement entered into between the Saudi Arabian Government and Mr. Aristotle Socratis Onassis with regard to the transport of oil which will debar British shipping from participation in this trade; and, in view of the unfair discrimination against British interests, whether he will make representations to protect British shipping.

I understand that an agreement has been made, but the text has not yet been published. If it is confirmed that the agreement will result in discrimination against British shipping, I will certainly consider what steps can usefully be taken.

In taking this matter into consideration, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind that if discrimination does result it is likely to cost Great Britain £10 million in invisible exports, in addition to the considerable work which might be lost to British shipyards?

Her Majesty's Government absolutely agree, and wish to make it quite clear that flag discrimination in peace-time is contrary to the best interests of international commerce and to the long-established practice of traditional maritime nations.

Is it not surprising—not only in regard to this but to other matters which have already been raised at Question time today—that the Government appear to be doing nothing? Why this inactivity? What would have happened if a Labour Government had been in power?

I imagine that if a Labour Government had been in power they would have been prodded by the Opposition. That is the duty of an Opposition. This is a serious matter, and there are many ways in which we can seek to bring pressure to bear upon other nations. I do not imagine that many hon. Members opposite would be in favour of going to war on an issue of this sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the monthly quota of occupation costs to which Her Majesty's Government are entitled from the Federal German Re public; and how much of this quota has been taken up in recent months.

Occupation costs, which are provided for all the Allied Powers, amount to DM. 600 million— about £50 million—a month. Within this total the allocations made by the Allied High Commission to the various Powers are confidential. In the case of Her Majesty's Government, they meet British requirements and are fully taken up.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to what extent the 600 million marks monthly is not being taken up jointly by the Allied Powers?

So far as I know, it is being fully taken up. Certainly the British quota is being fully taken up.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are being conducted with the Federal German Republic with a view to ending the payment of occupation costs in respect of British troops in Germany.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the present arrangement comes to an end in a few weeks' time? What is being done to provide for the future and to ensure that the British taxpayer shall not find himself saddled with an obligation of another £100 million a year as from 1st July next?

That is a rather different question from the precise form of words in the Question on the Order Paper, which I have answered. Negotiations are proceeding with regard to the total de-fence contribution after the coming into force of the E.D.C. agreement.

May we take it from what the Minister of State has said that there will be no reduction in the German contribution to British Government costs until the Bonn Treaties have been ratified by all the necessary countries?

I should like to have notice of that question.

How soon can the Minister give the House some information about the way in which this very large item of expenditure is to be borne?

The first question is to see whether there is another period after 30th June this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements were made by the British Information Service in New York for the appearance of Mr. Roger Bannister in a television programme sponsored by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

The British Information Services, New York, were asked by a producer of programmes to transmit an invitation to Mr. Bannister to appear on television. The Foreign Office were glad to ask Mr. Bannister to accept this invitation as it was felt that nothing but good to Anglo-American relations would result. At the time it was thought that no difficulties over Mr. Bannister's amateur status would arise from his undertaking a visit from which he himself would receive no personal gain.

Did the Foreign Office know at the time that Mr. Bannister's reputation was going to be exploited by sponsored television to make money for a tobacco company, although the gentleman is not a smoker? Does not that show the dangers of sponsored television, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that when we have sponsored television he will not bring over here an American athlete to boost Scotch whisky although he may not be a whisky drinker?

Appearances on sponsored television are a recognised form of publicity in the United States. I am quite certain that many hon. Members have appeared on sponsored television without being contaminated thereby.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that this episode will increase the wish of the British public to have commercial TV foisted on them?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should introduce his monopolistic feelings or his spleen against commercial television into a matter of this sort.

asked the Minister of Supply to what extent he is assisting the progress made in the production of the Sikorsky S.56 30–40 seater helicopter, which could be made in this country, in view of the fact that there is an indication that it will meet the need of an economic proposition in the development of this form of air transport.

If the hon. Member will let me know what kind of assistance to production he has in mind, I shall be happy to consider it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not of the opinion that this S.56 is years ahead of any other type of helicopter capable of carrying from 30 to 40 passengers, and would he not consider as soon as practicable acquiring some of these helicopters and handing them over to B.E.A.C. for development and group flying experience before it is too late?

I think that is rather an involved proposal, but I shall be glad to consider it. A few days ago the hon. Gentleman gave notice that he proposed to raise the whole matter on the Adjournment. That would seem to me to be a more suitable occasion to go into detailed questions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that, whereas there are six Ministers here now, on the Adjournment there would be only the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and that I hope that other Ministers will not shelter under his umbrella?

The Question that the hon. Gentleman asked, on which he gave notice he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, was almost identical to this one.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind very valuable flying data in connection with helicopters has been obtained from the S.51 services operated by B.E.A.C. on such routes as Birmingham to Northolt and Liverpool to Cardiff? Why has there been a cessation in the last 12 months of those experimental flights? Could we not continue with the S.55, for instance, as a preliminary to the machine mentioned in this. Question?

Will my right hon. Friend ensure and give an undertaking that if the S.56 is to be used here it will be made in this country and not acquired from the United States?

asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Minister of Materials, when it is expected to complete the disposal of surplus stocks left over from the war and the subsequent period of shortages and valued at about £50 million; what is the present value of the stock; and what was the value of the stock disposed of during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1954.

Terminal stocks to the value of about £75 million were disposed of in the year ended 31st March last, and further disposals to the value of about £40 million are expected to take place during this financial year. There are also certain commitments to take up non-ferrous metals and raw cotton under continuing contracts. The work of disposal, on a much diminished scale, will extend into the next financial year but should virtually be completed in that year except for any fresh disposal liabilities that may arise in respect of jute and cotton. The figure quoted by my hon. Friend of the current value of residual trading stocks is the one I gave him on 10th May. I have no more up-to-date figure.

Can we take it that with the lowering of the stocks held the numbers of staff engaged in administering these stocks will also be reduced?

Yes, Sir, I can assure my hon. Friend that the staffs will be running down.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department made a profit or a loss on the stocks sold during the year ending 31st March?

That is a difficult matter for me to deal with offhand.

Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether all these stocks were in the empty cupboards left by the previous Administration?

Some of them have come in as a result of continuing contracts during the past 2½ years.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the proposed security pact for South-East Asia.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make his promised statement on the progress towards a South-East Asian defence pact.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will make a statement regarding the proposed Asian security pact;

asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to consider the Anzus Pact as the nucleus of the proposed South-East Asia Pact.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for postponing these Questions until now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread appreciation of the difficulty of his answering in more detail while the Geneva Conference is on? At the same time, is he also aware that there will be general assent to any reinforcement of a settlement in South-East Asia in which India and China were taking part in order to bring about peace, but that there will be resentment about a collective peace designed to encircle China by any military entanglements?

I will bear that in mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? He said that there was a distinction between the general talks which were taking place, and to which the Minister of State referred, and the talks which are taking place between the French and United States Governments; will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that there is no contemplation on the part of Her Majesty's Government of any kind of military intervention in Indo-China before the outcome of the Geneva Conference is known?

I think that was very clearly shown in my answer.

Will the Prime Minister consider sending a message of encouragement from the House as a whole to the Foreign Secretary in his valiant and sustained exertions in the cause of peace in the Far East?

Will the Prime Minister say whether, in considering this pact for South-East Asia, the problem of economic aid to the countries concerned is being borne in mind, as that is the main reason why N.A.T.O. has been a success in Europe, that economic aid has been given to the countries concerned?

Yes, Sir, I am sure that all such matters would be relevant.

Would the Prime Minister agree that in any question of a pact guaranteeing the nations of South-East Asia a prerequisite is that those nations should desire to be so guaranteed, because surely it is a most doubtful policy to guarantee people who do not wish to be guaranteed?

That is a point which no doubt will be mentioned in the course of these discussions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point which the Minister of State was unable to clear up earlier, namely, can he say whether or not any initiative has come from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon or Indonesia for the formation of such a military pact in South-East Asia?

I think I would rather deal with that as a whole, not on that one particular point.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he apologised to the Institute of Directors for the action of the Inland Revenue in asking for details about the entertainment expenses of company directors.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not apologise because the Inland Revenue asked for details of entertainment expenses. I said that the Board of Inland Revenue regretted that an error of judgment had been made by a particular tax office in demanding in a particular case unnecessarily detailed information on matters which went far beyond entertainment expenses.

Could the Minister differentiate between an expression of regret and an apology, and was not that branch of the Inland Revenue Department carrying out its job in trying to prevent tax evasion, and was it necessary to make this humiliating and grovelling apology when his officers were only doing their duty and helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

As I tried to explain in my original answer, the expression of regret was because unnecessary particulars were asked for in this case. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I always apologise when I am in error, though that does not often happen.

Yes, but does the Financial Secretary still stand by the undertaking given by the Chancellor on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill last year, that he would back the Inland Revenue in all steps it took to prevent tax evasion?

Nothing I have said in reply to this Question diminishes in any way what my right hon. Friend said on that or any other occasion. This matter, as I have tried to explain, relates solely to an individual case in which it seemed to me that inquisition was being carried definitely too far.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say what were the excessive inquiries made in this case?

They were very long and detailed but, if they would interest the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly send them to him.

Would the Financial Secretary circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Subject to any view that the authorities may have on the point, I should have no objection.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this incident arose from an inquiry made by the Inland Revenue as to the number of haircuts a business executive had in New York?

There is nothing about haircuts in it, although I am bound to say it looks rather like a "close shave."

Will the Financial Secretary give an assurance that the Inland Revenue officer concerned, whose zeal the right hon. Gentleman has deprecated, is not being subjected to any disciplinary punishment; in other words, that he will not be penalised for acting in what he conceived to be in good faith in the public interest?

No officer is penalised for acting sensibly and in good faith, but it is a matter of judgment for which Ministers must take responsibility as to how far it is justifiable in this admittedly difficult and delicate matter to press precise details of inquiry and whether they are pressed to a point at which they may well become an undue burden.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make a statement on the military situation in Korea and say in what activities British troops are engaged.

Both sides in Korea are disposed in accordance with the Armistice Agreement. The Communist strength has remained much the same since the Armistice but the North Korean army is being re-equipped. The main tasks of the Commonwealth Division are to repair and develop their positions and to keep up their standard of training.

But, in view of the rather more favourable situation in Korea, is it not intended to return some of the men to this country?

It is certainly our hope to get our men back from Korea as soon as we can, but that will obviously depend largely on the outcome of the Geneva Conference.

Could the hon. Gentleman say whether replacements are being sent at the present time, or whether the Government are allowing the Forces to run down without replacements from this country?

The order of battle is being maintained at about the same level.

That is a very vague reply. Can the hon. Gentleman not say whether the Government are refraining from sending replacements?

The numbers have not changed significantly.

Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows who has re-equipped the North Koreans?

We can all make guesses, I think.

May I ask why it has been proposed that this Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House? Since it was dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, it seems to me that, if it has to be recommitted, it ought to be recommitted to that Committee.

It is quite in order to move the Motion which has been moved, and I shall put it to the House.

Could we have a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?

I understand that it is necessary to recommit the Bill in connection with the Amendments set out on the Order Paper. The same procedure was followed on a Bill of the same nature relating to England. I was under the impression that this was a perfectly normal procedure.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not run away from the point which has been put to him? We all agree that it is necessary to recommit the Bill to a Committee, but the point at issue is whether it should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House or to the Scottish Grand Committee. We desire to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not suggested that, since the Bill has already been before the Scottish Grand Committee, it should be recommitted in respect of these Clauses to the Scottish Grand Committee.

As someone who is not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, may I point out how very inconvenient it seems that this Bill, which affects Scotland, should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House instead of to the Scottish Grand Committee, which obviously is much more fitted to deal with it than is a Committee of the whole House. I am sure that you would admit, Mr. Speaker, that it places hon. Members like myself in a difficulty if a Committee of the whole House is to examine a Scottish Bill, and I should have thought that it would have been simpler to deal with it in the Scottish Grand Committee. We have heard nothing from the Secretary of State to justify what seems to me to be a most remarkable, unprecedented and inconvenient procedure.

I wish to support the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). It seems quite inconsistent and wrong that this Bill should be taken from one tribunal after being part heard and the hearing continued before another tribunal. It is as if a case in a court of law were partly heard by one learned judge and the rest of the hearing continued before another learned judge. The Scottish Grand Committee has dealt with the Bill up to the present and is fully qualified to deal with it. In my submission, it is not only illogical but entirely wrong to take the Bill from one jurisdiction and present it to another.

I wish to put two reasons for opposing the Motion which might appeal to the Secretary of State. The first is that this Bill contains many technical phrases and descriptions which English hon. Members do not understand. That also is the opinion of many English Members. I submit that it is a reason why the Bill should be recommitted to the Scottish Grand Committee. I see the Attorney-General present, but even he, with his vast knowledge of legal matters, would be rather diffident in trying to interpret technical Scottish terms.

No disrespect is meant or intended to the Scottish Grand Committee. All the Members of that Committee are Members of this House. It would have been possible—indeed it has happened with many Bills—to have taken this Bill in Committee of the whole House. If this Motion were agreed to, we would have a brief stage of recommittal followed by the Report stage and all hon. Members in the House would be entitled to take part in the proceedings. I cannot see that the fact that the Bill is dealt with in Committee of the whole House would exclude any hon. Member from Scotland from taking part in the proceedings.

If that argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is in any way applicable, it was applicable when the right hon. Gentleman, we think rightly, moved that this Bill be considered in the Scottish Grand Committee. The only reason he gives for following the proposed procedure is that this procedure was adopted in relation to the English Bill.

May I suggest that this is common form when any Bill has been before a Standing Committee. It does not matter whether it happens to be the Scottish Grand Committee, but in the case of any Bill it is open to the Minister to move the recommittal of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. The right hon. Member knows quite well that no Member of the Scottish Grand Committee is thereby debarred from putting a point in which his or her constituents are interested.

The hon. Member is quite wrong—

No, I am not.

If the hon. Member will listen, he will see that he is quite wrong in saying that it is the Minister who recommits a Bill; it is this House which recommits a Bill. This House has already committed an intricate Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee and that Committee, frequently with the help of the Government, has had lengthy and patient discussions on this Bill.

No, I am laughing at you.

I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not laughing at me.

Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I should have said that I was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman.