asked the Minister of Transport if he has any statement to make in connection with the alteration of the speed limit for goods vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. for heavy goods vehicles on pneumatic tyres.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1st November to a Question by the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth), of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider publishing simple instructions clarifying the existing law regarding priority of usage between pedestrians and motor traffic at studded street crossings.

The provisions of the Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Regulations, 1941, are clearly summarised on page 28 of the Highway Code. I have asked the Committee on Road Safety to examine the question of the use and observance of pedestrian crossing places, and when they have reported I will consider whether the regulations can be improved.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present position is quite chaotic, that the issue is constantly between weight and agility, that the odds are, generally, on weight—that is, on the motor vehicle—and that the pedestrian has to suffer?

I would not agree that the conditions are chaotic. It is laid down quite clearly in the orders issued that the pedestrian has the right of way with regard to pedestrian crossings.

The pedestrian may have the right of way, but if the motor vehicle persists in going on, he has to be very quick to get out of its way.

I would point out that a fine is imposed if the conditions are infringed.

Would my right hon. Friend commend to other areas the very excellent arrangements which exist in Kensington High Street? They are first-class in that part of London.

The rules and regulations are no different in Kensington High Street from elsewhere.

Can the Minister tell us whether, where there are lights on the crossings, the pedestrian has the right to pass whether those lights are green or red?

No, Sir, the pedestrian has not that right when the lights are against him.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will authorise the reinstatement of the traffic control signals at the junction of Lough-borough Road, Angell Road and Brixton Road, which have not been operating since the war.

The reinstatement of these signals has already been agreed upon, and I understand that the local authority have ordered the necessary equipment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this agreement will be very welcome to the many pedestrians who have to use this crossing?

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will now discontinue the sale by auction of surplus machine tools which would be required for essential production in the event of the outbreak of war.

No machine tool is sold if it is required as a reserve or for other Government purposes.

Did the Minister read the article in the "Daily Graphic" of last Saturday which was headed "Our War Tools for the Iron Curtain"; and further, is there any restriction on the export of machine tools bought by auction?

Yes, Sir, they are all subject to restriction and come under a Board of Trade order.

Is the Minister aware that a number of machine tools are finding their way to Palestine by similar devious channels?

Will the Minister undertake that none of these machine tools will be sent to Russia?

I have said that no machine tools required in this country for reserve, and, indeed, none required for making munitions, are exported.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that 36,000 pieces of radio equipment dumped by his Department in a disused pit shaft at Cheadle, Staffs, and declared in the House of Commons by his predecessor on 17th December, 1945, to be valueless, have now been recovered after the shifting and replacing of 200 tons of dirt and disposed of by private enterprise at a profit; and whether he will investigate the reasons for the original decision and make a statement on the matter.

About 10,000 radio transmitters and transmitter receivers were dumped in this shaft. I cannot say how many were recovered, but I understand that no pieces have been removed since September, 1946, when an undertaking was given in an action in the High Court that no further equipment would be taken from the pit, which was then closed. When it was decided to dump these sets the question was whether it would have been economical to break them down for recoverable components. It was not considered economical to do so as they were damaged military types, unsuitable for civilian use, and at that time large quantities of serviceable parts were being sold competitively to the trade. In present conditions no set would be destroyed or dumped unless it was considered advisable on security grounds or unless it had been proved that there was no market for it.

Is the Minister aware that of the so-called damaged sets, not one valve was damaged or had been removed? They were 22 valve sets. Further, is the Minister aware that there was a large number of rotary converters which have been sold at a large profit to industry in Lancashire, and that of the sets so dumped there were 8,000 complete sets which were sold at an average price of £8 or £10 a set? Is not this an extremely incompetent way of managing the country's business?

I cannot accept all these facts. All I know is that there was no new apparatus of any sort put in this shaft, that all the second-hand apparatus which was put there was found to be absolutely unsaleable, and the space where these sets previously were housed was urgently needed for other purposes.

Why were these sets not put up for sale or tender in the first place, to give somebody a chance to make the profit, which apparently has been done since?

They were found to be completely unsaleable.

In view of the very serious allegations in this case, will the Minister give an undertaking to have a full public inquiry into the matter to ascertain the true facts so that the people responsible can be brought to book?

No, Sir. I do not consider anybody is responsible for any negligence. This was about three years ago. Most careful inquiries were made to see whether this apparatus was saleable or serviceable in any way. It was only after the most careful consideration that it was found that it was not saleable and that the best thing to do was to dump it.

Rather than sell machine tools to Poles, will the right hon. Gentleman follow this precedent and put them into a pit?

Is the Minister aware that his Ministry, or the Ministry of Fuel and Power, attempted to stop the extraction of this equipment, although the rights had been purchased by a man in that Division? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was an effort by the Ministry to hush up what is nothing less than a major scandal? I have seen the sets, the valves and the rotary converters. They were new and undamaged, and they were of considerable value.

In view of this direct conflict of evidence on what obviously is a most serious allegation, will not the Minister consider referring this matter to some form of public inquiry?

No, Sir. If the hon. Member who raised the Question has some information contrary to that which I have given to the House——

He has given it.

—information which is supported by some evidence, I shall be very willing to look into the evidence and answer a further Question on the matter, if necessary.

In view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I shall bring some of the machinery to the House to show to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Supply how many sets of radio equipment and of what type have been buried in the Delphouse pit near Cheadle, Staffordshire; and whether, in view of the profitable recovery of sets from the Wonder pit nearby, he will concert with the Minister of Fuel and Power for their extraction.

About 1,300 radio transmitters and transmitter receivers were dumped in the Delphouse pit, and 30,000 incendiary bombs were dumped on top of them. It would, therefore, be impracticable to recover the sets, which could not in any case be used for civilian purposes.

Was the wireless trade given any opportunity to purchase these sets before they were dumped, in order to secure the component parts which are in such short supply and so urgently needed in this country and for export?

These sets, and certainly the sets mentioned in the previous Question, were offered to the trade but they were unsaleable. These sets were not suitable for civilian use.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the sets were offered, but is he aware that tenders were received in this country from Poland, Holland and France, and that they could not be taken because the sets were not put on the market?

asked the Minister of Supply why permission asked for by Bio Electrics, Ltd., to send to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow the approved specification and drawings of electric soldering irons as laid down by the Co-ordinating Committee on Hand Tools has not been granted, although asked for in July last.

This specification was a draft which was circulated to manufacturers for their comments. It was subsequently withdrawn for reconsideration and finally abandoned. While permission to send a copy to the hon. and gallant Member was not specifically refused, it was assumed that the firm would not, in these circumstances, wish to do so. If, however, he would like a copy of the draft, I shall be glad to send him one.

Is the specification which replaced the one that was withdrawn available for the use of Members, if they want it?

If there is a specification which has replaced the one which has been withdrawn, I will certainly send one to the hon. and gallant Member, if he so desires.

asked the Minister of Supply in what way a steel company may now finance an urgent approved project for which a public issue of new capital would have been made.

All the normal ways of raising new capital are still open to a steel company. The British Iron and Steel Corporation will be liable for all debts to banks or other creditors of those companies whose shares it will acquire, and subscribers to new issues of securities will receive compensation equal to the price of issue.

Does the Minister think that it is very likely the public will subscribe to those new issues?

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that 250 monkeys recently arrived in this country from Calcutta by air consigned to his Department; and for what purpose he intends to use these animals.

The animals referred to are required for research purposes, the nature of which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

In view of the extreme reticence of the Minister of Supply, like that of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, may I ask whether he is aware that this reticence only leads to the view among the general public that these animals are needed for some nefarious purpose? If it is, in fact, proved that they are needed for the same reasons as the animals were needed at the Bikini trials, the conscience of this country will be as revolted as it was at that time.

In view of the shortage of Labour candidates, is it a fact that safe seats have been found for all these monkeys?

Are these animals being brought here for experiments in bacteriological warfare?

asked the Minister of Supply how many offers con stituting breaches of the Iron and Steel Orders have been investigated by his price investigations office since 1st January, 1946; on how many occasions were proceedings instituted; and how many convictions were obtained.

Eleven offers to sell iron and steel above controlled prices have been investigated, and it has been decided not to prosecute. Nine cases are still under investigation, and I cannot say yet whether or not proceedings will be instituted.

Can the Minister say why it has been decided not to prosecute?

Because it was considered that the evidence was not strong enough to obtain a conviction.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) if he will publish a list of all the subsidiary companies in

With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT lists of the subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and overseas which, according to my present information, are wholly owned by companies named in the Third Schedule to the Iron and Steel Bill.

Can the Minister say roughly how many of these companies there are?

I think the number is about 150.

asked the Minister of Supply what was the amount of the allocation of steel given for the manufacture of Hunslett locomotives ordered by the National Coal Board for underground operation.

I regret that I cannot disclose details of allocations to particular manufacturers.

Is the Minister aware that this steel which is in such short supply is now being wasted; that these locomotives are lying idle; that they cannot be used and they cannot be exported because it is only possible to use them underground in this country? Why does the Minister allocate steel in this way, in view of the shortage in this country and the fact that it is so urgently needed for so many things?

There is a general shortage of steel. Many firms who require steel cannot get all they want.

Then why give it for useless projects like this?

asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the contribution made by the motor industry to the export trade, he will increase the next allocation of steel.

I regret that it has not been possible to make more than a very small increase in the allocation of steel to the motor industry for the first period of 1949.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is worth while cutting down less essential allocations for the purpose of giving even greater encouragement to an industry which is making such a notable contribution to our export drive?

The difficulty is to find those less essential products in which we could effect an economy.

asked the Minister of Supply if he has any statement to make on the future of High Duty Alloys Ltd. factory, Distington, Cumberland.

This privately-owned factory was extended and additional plant installed during the war at Government expense. The extension and part of the plant have now been sold to the owners, High Duty Alloys, Ltd. My information is that only part of the factory will be needed for aluminium fabrication, owing to the reduced civilian demand, and the remainder will be let for other manufacturing purposes, if a suitable tenant can be found.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the paying off of skilled workers recently is causing concern in that area and would he be prepared to conduct a local inquiry as to the future of the factory?

I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but High Duty Alloys, Ltd., have a right of option on the building and, although they will consult us as to how it will be used, we have no authority to intervene.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement about the shortage of sugar-beet forks; and where this exists, what steps are being taken to alleviate it.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the shortage of fully-strapped garden forks; and whether he will get more of these made.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the present shortage of spades, forks, beet forks, and potato forks; and what steps are being taken to overcome the shortage.

I am not aware of any general shortage of these tools. Supplies of sugar-beet forks for the present season will not be less than were available last season. There may, however, be seasonal shortages locally of all types of spades and forks. If the hon. Members have evidence of a shortage in a particular area and will let me have details, I will draw the manufacturers' attention to it.

asked the Minister of Supply if, in order to increase sales of British cars in the United States, he will consult with the motor trade with a view to transporting the recent motor show to America for exhibition in the leading cities.

Yes, Sir; but preliminary inquiries suggest that this is unlikely to be practicable.

Does not my right hon. Friend still retain considerable influence with the motor industry and will he not encourage them to see that very considerable free publicity would result from such an expedition to the leading States of America, quite apart from the fact that there would be no difficulty in selling the cars at the show?

That is being considered by the motor industry, but there are very real difficulties and I am doubtful if, at the end, it will be found possible to do this.

Will my right hon. Friend say what are some of the difficulties?

The difficulty of obtaining an appropriate hall, the difficulty of expenditure—which is a particular difficulty—and there are many others.

If one of the difficulties is that of shipping, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can get an aircraft carrier to take the whole show over?

asked the Minister of Works when work on the Women's Land Army Hostel, near Rams-bury Aerodrome, Wiltshire, was started; what was the original date of completion; when it is now hoped to finish it; what was the original estimate of cost; what is now expected to be the final cost; and how many men have on the average been employed.

Work on the preparation of the Women's Land Army Hostel, near Ramsbury Aerodrome, Wiltshire, was started on 17th March, 1948, and it was originally hoped to finish it in May. The work was completed on 11th August. The original estimate of cost was £1,330; the expected final cost is £2,603; the average number of men employed was 10.

asked the Minister of Works why representatives of the Press are debarred from attending and reporting zonal conferences; and if he will now remove this disability.

Zone conferences are in no sense public meetings. The Press do not attend inter-Departmental meetings held for the transaction of official business and these meetings are of the same type. I see no reason to change the practice.

Do not these conferences bring out many of the reasons for the almost unbelievable slowness in building? Surely the public has a right to know what these reasons are? Surely the whole object is defeated if the conferences are kept secret?

The purpose of these zone conferences is to consider the allocation between the various local authorities concerned of the available building labour and materials in the area. This sort of discussion could not adequately and properly be carried out in public.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment without further ado.

asked the Minister of Works what has resulted from the meeting in Caernarvon in July, 1948, between representatives of the North Wales slate quarrying industry and officials of his Department.

The meeting was held to discuss a detailed technical report made at my invitation. This report made recommendations regarding the machinery required by the industry and suggested measures to improve its organisation through the formation of larger units. The former recommendations were welcomed by representatives of the industry, and help is being given and will continue to be given to obtain delivery of equipment. Some of the firms are now considering the formation of a merger company, and I have made it clear that if I receive businesslike proposals, I am prepared to facilitate the raising of new capital.

asked the Minister of Works whether he will consider the erection of a prominent sign outside the gates of New Palace Yard to indicate that a taxicab is required at the Members' entrance, instead of the present ineffective bell.

I am discussing with the authorities of the House the possibility of making other arrangements.

While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that at present only those taxicabs coming from the district of Waterloo can hear the bell and that no taxicab coming from Millbank, Victoria or Whitehall can hear it? As a consequence, Members of Parliament are frequently kept waiting a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes for a cab.

asked the Minister of Works (1) whether an official investigation has been made by his Department into the repairs to the Chadderton North Ward Conservative Club and into the circumstances under which a decision was made that proceedings would not be taken; and whether he has any statement to make;

(2) what was the amount of the permit granted to the Chadderton North Ward Conservative Club for repairs and renewals to their property during the year ended 31st March, 1947; and what was the amount actually expended.

A licence for £90 was granted in November, 1946, and the expenditure on work requiring a licence, in fact, amounted to £186. The discrepancy was investigated by the local authority concerned who undertake proceedings for offences against the building licensing regulations, and they decided not to take proceedings in this instance. I see no reason to override their decision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the local authority concerned were also members of the committee of the Conservative club and that when it was pointed out that it was improper for them to vote on this matter, when it came before the local authority, they all resigned, temporarily, membership of the Conservative club in order to vote against this prosecution? If these are the facts, does not the Minister consider that the matter should be investigated?

I was not aware of these facts, but I do riot think they make any difference to the question of this licence. The work done without licence at a cost of £96 consisted of overhauling electric lighting, repairs to the lift and roof, and joinery and plumbing repairs. A licence for this would have been granted if application had been made, in addition to the licence already given.

While no one doubts the need for light in a Conservative club at this moment, the same considerations should apply to them as apply to ordinary householders.

Will the Minister emphasise that his Department has investigated this case extremely thoroughly and that some of these alterations were to comply with the law which requires emergency lighting in a club of this sort?

Of course, my Department investigated it and, as I have said, I see no reason to act contrary to the decision of the local authority in this matter.

asked the Minister of Works whether he has yet reached a decision as to the future of the statue of General Gordon.

Yes, Sir. I propose to put this statue in a public garden which will be laid out between the new Government Offices now being built in Whitehall and the Embankment. This site has been approved in principle by the Royal Fine Art Commission.

While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his decision—a slightly deferred decision—which I think will give general satisfaction, may I ask him whether the General will be established in time to keep an eye on the development of the Exhibition site across the water?

We all hope he will.

asked the Minister of Works whether he proposes to use Palmerstoni endriana, otherwise known as Australian walnut, as flooring in the new Chamber of the House of Commons.

The architect proposes to use Australian walnut for the flooring of the new Chamber.

Is the Minister aware that about every fiftieth plank of this otherwise excellent hard wood develops a most frightful smell, and will he, entirely in the interests of the House, see that every plank is carefully examined before being put in?

I am certain that those concerned will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds he has given permission for the establishment at Hanover of an association of Germans from each department of what was previously Eastern Germany; and how were the representatives of the areas concerned chosen to serve on the body set up.

The association to which my hon. Friend refers appears to be concerned principally with the problem of representing the interests of German refugees now in Western Germany, but previously resident in the former German territories. A meeting of this organisation was held at Hanover on 6th November which was attended by delegates chosen by the refugees themselves.

The responsibility for the licensing and control of all German refugee associations in the British zone was handed over to the Land Governments in June, 1948, subject to the over-riding power of the Military Governor to intervene should the association indulge in political agitation.

Does my right hon. Friend not think it the height of unwisdom to allow an organisation like this to be established, in view of the fact that it is almost entirely nationalistically inspired, and that the personnel comprising it are people who, all along down the years, have been associated with the nationalist and Nazi movements in Germany?

Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I ask him if it is not time now to recognise that these people have already suffered sufficiently, and at least should be permitted to be able to represent their views?

I think it proper and just that their proper interests should still be safeguarded. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of political agitation, my right hon. Friend, of course, will be more than glad to examine it.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the sharp distinction between those people representing their very real grievances and wishing to consider their own problems inside Germany as it is today, and those who wish to carry on revisionist propaganda which, as I understand it, is the object of many of these associations?

It is precisely the evidence of that type of propaganda that I am anxious to examine.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has returned to protests from the French and other Allied Governments against the Anglo-American Military Government ordinance concerning the future of the Ruhr coal, iron and steel industries.

As the answer is long I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

It is not proposed to make public the communications exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the French Government on this subject. I should like, however, to take this opportunity to make a statement about the Trusteeship Scheme for the German coal and iron and steel industry. No protest about this pronouncement has been received, except from the French Government. When the Anglo-United States proposals were first discussed with the French Military Governor and (in accordance with the practice followed since the London Talks on Germany earlier this year) with Benelux representatives in Germany, the latter made certain comments which were taken into account in the Law as finally drafted.

As for the French Government, I must make the nature of their protest clear. It relates only to the statement in the preamble to the Trusteeship Laws that "the question of the eventual ownership of the coal and iron and steel industries is one for determination by a freely elected German Government." They do not take exception to the Trusteeship Laws as such. On the contrary, they favour the reorganisation scheme in principle as tending to increase production.

The question at issue, therefore, is that of future ownership. The French Government have consistently maintained that security could best be achieved by subjecting the Ruhr to some form of international ownership; and, when they notified His Majesty's Government of their acceptance of the London decisions, they stated that they continued to regard international ownership as the best solution. His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, remained convinced that some form of public ownership is the right solution of the problem. But the question of eventual ownership is one which could not he longer left in suspense if the resources of the German industries concerned are to be mobilised effectively in the task of European recovery to which the three governments are committed. The two Governments responsible for the administration of the Bizone were both of the opinion that, in effecting the needed reorganisation of the coal and iron and steel industries centred in the Ruhr on a temporary and provisional basis, it was essential to set at rest the uncertainties about eventual ownership which were impeding full production. A statement that the question of ownership would be left to the determination of a freely-elected German Government which, in the circumstances, seems to His Majesty's Government the solution most compatible with our conception of democracy, was therefore included in the draft of the reorganisation scheme as submitted to the French Military Governor some two months ago. It was to this passage that General Koenig took exception and his representations were supported later by formal representations from the French Ambassador.

These French objections were given careful consideration. It was evident that French views and our own on the question of ownership could not be reconciled, and that the good effects which we expected from the promulgation of the trusteeship laws could not be achieved if the question of ownership was once again left in the air. My right hon. Friend accordingly notified the French Government on 4th November, after full consultation with the United States, authorities, that he felt unable to instruct the British Military Governor to modify the proposal which he had agreed with his United States colleague for the inclusion in the Trusteeship Law of the statement about eventual ownership.

I have dealt with the past history of this matter in order to dispel any misapprehension that we failed to keep the French Government informed or treated them with less consideration than is proper between friends and allies. But in basic objectives His Majesty's Government and the French Government are at one. We are both aiming at arrangements for the control and level of German industry, which will give security to France, to this country and to our neighbours. We are, I believe, at one also in wishing to see the productive resources of Western Germany peacefully employed for the economic recovery of Europe.

So far as ownership is concerned, however, His Majesty's Government believe it right that a freely elected German Government reflecting the will of the German people should make its own choice. But that does not mean that they can choose to restore excessive concentrations of economic power or to reinstate persons who furthered the aggressive designs of the Nazi party. These points are specifically covered in the Trusteeship Law. Neither can they make arrangements about ownership which frustrate the exercise of the powers which will be reserved to the Occupying Authorities in the Occupation Statute now in preparation, or are in conflict with present or future security controls or with the terms of an eventual Peace Treaty. As the public statement accompanying the promulgation of the law made clear, the German Government must exercise its choice "within the limits of Military Government policy already expressed." I hope that it will be possible, when current discussions on an International Authority for the Ruhr and on the Occupation Statute are completed, to make a further statement explaining the various steps in different fields—of which ownership is only one—which will be taken to ensure that the gradual devolution of authority from Military Government to German hands will be carried out in a manner which safeguards our security and that of our Allies in Western Europe.

In view of certain disturbing signs of a revival of nationalism and militarism in some parts of Germany, will my right hon. Friend pay rather more careful attention to the objections of the French and other Allied Governments who do not desire that the sole ownership and control of the Ruhr mines and steel works shall revert to a German State?

I have tried to make plain that the question of ownership is, subject to certain limitations, in our opinion a matter for the German people. As to the long-term aspects of security, that is surely a subject for the makers of the Peace Treaty and does not arise in connection with a discussion to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. Am I right in saying that the question of the future ownership of this area and these mines was specifically reserved by agreement at the last Allied meeting which took place in the summer? If so, is it also true that this Anglo-American notification was then made without any further discussion between the Governments between last summer and the issue of the statement?

I think it is hardly accurate to say that it was, reserved. It was not included, but it is true that the French Government particularly drew our attention to their precise reservations on this subject. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as joint administrators of the bizone we had certain responsibilities in relation to the organisation of this industry and our own administration. It was in consequence of this responsibility that we took the decision which has now been published.

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that if this subject was reserved as between Allies as a result of a declaration by one Ally, we should have discussed the matter further with them and at length before issuing a declaration with only one of our Allies?

I quite understand and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's care on this subject, but it is hardly accurate to say that it was reserved because one of our allies, for good and understandable reasons, entered their reservations. We had a responsibility from which we could not escape by their reservations.

Can my right hon. Friend say who the new trustees will be, and whether their appointment will in any way prejudice the eventual nationalisation or internationalisation of the Ruhr industries?

The subjects are quite separate, as I have already explained. The question of the form of ownership is a matter for the German people.

Who will the trustees be?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the registering of patents by Germans, and for the safeguarding of these patents internationally, including mutual respect for those registered in the Eastern and Western zones; and what further steps he proposes to take in the matter.

No, Sir, but they are the best we have as yet been able to achieve. The German authorities concerned are taking administrative steps to convert as soon as possible the present patent filing office into a functional office for which we, in conjunction with the United States Government, are seeking international recognition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman fully aware of the present handicap this is to German recovery, in that no one can bring forward an invention of any sort without the fear of its not being properly safeguarded? Is this not something which ought to be very energetically pursued.

I am aware of these difficulties, and we are making such provision as we can, and we will join in seeking to have these patents internationally recognised.