asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the system of civil airways in which positive air traffic control will be exercised, is now in operation.

Not yet, Sir. It is hoped that the first of the proposed airways from London to Strumble Head on the Pembroke coast will be opened within the next two months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet Embassy to the note delivered on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the disappearance of a large number of Soviet officials from the Soviet Embassy.

The Soviet Embassy have hardly had time to reply to the last inquiry addressed to them on this subject, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that this question will not be lost sight of.

Have there not been well-authenticated reports that in cases of this kind officials do, in fact, disappear and become spies? Will my hon. Friend please bring this matter to the notice of the Soviet authorities as it is of great importance and causes many doubts and much disquiet?

I do not wish to comment upon what my hon. Friend says. We are already making inquiries, and we are not going to let this matter lie. We are awaiting a reply.

Are any of these people actually in receipt of diplomatic immunity? If so, is any inquiry made before the immunity is granted to somebody else?

I should like to have notice of that question. I do not think, that I have the exact details here.

Are there any well-authenticated instances of a man who has disappeared in these circumstances becoming a spy?

Yes.

Can the Minister tell the House whether any of the members of the Soviet Embassy who disappeared have actually left this country, or whether they are roaming about at large within this island?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the machinery by which His Majesty's Government propose to obtain payment from the Albanian Government in respect of damages awarded against Albania by The Hague Court, as a result of the mining of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel; and whether a date has, yet been fixed for discussing the payment of these damages.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when, where, and with whom discussions are to take place with a view to obtaining payment of the damages awarded to this country by The Hague Court on the grounds of the mining by Albania of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel.

Discussions over the payment of damages in the Corfu case will, I hope, begin in Paris shortly after Easter. They will be conducted by those persons who were the agents of the two Governments in the proceedings before The Hague Court.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance, now that the award of The Hague Court has been made, that there will be no bargaining about the actual lump sum involved?

We have to enter discussions as to how this sum ought to be paid. We stand on our rights that we are entitled to be paid the sum that The Hague Court has awarded to us.

Can the hon. Gentleman at least give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend that the amount awarded by the Court will not be departed from?

We shall not depart from our claim that the money awarded shall be paid. What we have to discuss is how the sum shall be paid.

Can the Minister make clear what it is that is to be discussed by these agents? Is it to be the mere manner of payment, the channel of payment, or the kind of currency or instrument that is to be received? What is to be discussed? How far or how nearly are these agents plenipotentiaries?

They have to discuss the payment which has been awarded by the Court. The Albanian Government have, quite wrongly in our view, denied the right of the Court to fix a particular sum, but have expressed willingness to enter discussions about the payment—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—while we have to do our best to see that the sum is paid. We are to have our first discussion shortly after Easter in Paris.

Could the hon. Gentleman answer the question a little more fully and tell the House who are the agents acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the Albanian Government?

Yes, Sir. The representative of His Majesty's Government is Sir Eric Beckett, who is legal adviser to the Foreign Office. The agent on the Albanian side is Mr. Shyvlla, the Albanian agent in Paris.

Will the hon. Gentleman look up the Foreign Office records to see what Lord Palmerston did in 1851 in the case of Don Pacifico—a very similar case?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British nationals employed on the Argentine Railways are not allowed to send remittances to their dependants in this country, contrary to the agreement reached with the Argentine when the railway was handed over; and what was the average annual value of such remittances prior to their prohibition by the Argentine Government.

The Agreement of Sale concluded on 13th February, 1947, between Sir Montague Eddy, representing the British-owned railways and the Argentine Government, did not guarantee the right to remit allowances overseas to dependants of British railway employees. These and similar remittances are governed by Argentine exchange laws and regulations. This was the case even when the railways were in British ownership. As regards the second part of the Question, the figures required are not separately classified and the average annual value of these allowances cannot be established from the sources of information at my disposal.

Does that answer mean that the Minister is satisfied with the present state of affairs? Is it not a fact that Italian and Spanish nationals are being more favourably treated than British nationals in this matter? In view of the hardship which is being caused to dependants of British nationals employed by Argentine Railways will he not do something to try to deal with this matter in isolation from other currency problems affecting the two countries?

It certainly does not mean that we are satisfied with the present position, but it is, unfortunately, the case that we have reason to believe that there has been some discrimination in favour of other nationals. We have made complaints about it and we are trying to deal with the position. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, whether we can deal with it in isolation, it is rather difficult. There are a good many matters under discussion at the moment, but we shall not lose sight of this one. I doubt whether it can be dealt with in complete isolation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during what period were Major Peter Wright, Major James Klugman, Mrs. Betty Wallace and Mr. Kenneth Svers employed on British missions abroad; and when were their appointments terminated.

Major Peter Wright was employed as Assistant Military Attaché at Belgrade from January, 1945, to October, 1947. Major Norman John Klugman (also known as James Klugman) was sent by His Majesty's Government to Yugoslavia in late 1944 with a military liaison mission. The duties of this mission were taken over by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, to which Major Klugman was transferred in April, 1945, and with which he continued to serve until 1946. Mrs. Betty Wallace is understood also to have served in the U.N.R.R.A. Mission to Yugoslavia; she was at no time employed by His Majesty's Government.

Can the Minister say what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the four persons mentioned in the Question were not Communist agents either before or during their service?

I think I can say that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that in none of these cases was anything done which was contrary to the national interest. The hon. Member will have observed that there is only one out of these four cases in which the appointment under His Majesty's Government continued after the end of the war.

Are we to conclude from the last part of the hon. Gentleman's answer that he thinks that persons in the employ, or who had been in the employ, of the Comintern could not do damage to the national interest during the war, and is it not a fact that Mr. Syers, before the appointment of which the Minister of State has just told us, had been in charge of Intelligence at Bari and that at the same time Major Klugman was the person in charge at Cairo, so that through the hands of these two men there came or did not come any information from Yugoslavia?

That is giving information, not asking a question.

If we cannot get an answer to that question, I will ask Question No. 15.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the Governments of Western Europe to form a Joint Department of Psychological Warfare as an integral part of Western defence.

No, Sir.

When will His Majesty's Government wake up to the real menace of Communism at home and abroad, and realise that it is deeds, not words, that we want?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the draft for a peace treaty with Japan promised by the United States for the beginning of 1950; and what proposals has the United States Government made to His Majesty's Government on this subject since February, 1950.

I know of no undertaking by the United States Government to communicate to His Majesty's Government the draft of a treaty of peace with Japan, and no such draft has been received. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None, Sir."

Is it not true that before the Foreign Secretary went to Colombo there was an understanding that something was to come from the United States as to what their plans were for a peace treaty? Are we to be assured that the United States is doing something at present to get on with that?

That proposition is rather different from the Question put on the Order Paper. We are in constant discussion on the diplomatic level with the United States about the preparations for a peace treaty with Japan. I was asked whether we had received a draft of the peace treaty, which was a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the existing exchange difficulties, he will take steps to negotiate a trade and payments agreement with the Mexican Government.

Views are being exchanged with the Mexican Government about the possibility of expanding trade between the two countries. I am not yet in a position to disclose any detailed information.

Is it not a fact that these negotiations have been going on for at least 18 months, and that we drew back from them at one time because we were afraid of offending the United States? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the present circumstances this is a suitable moment to press the negotiations and bring them to a conclusion?

It is a fact that there were negotiations which had to be broken off. As I have said, we are in discussion about this at present. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question a little later I might then be in a position to say something.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to the formation of para-military formations in the Soviet zone of Germany, in particular as to the Freie Deutsche Jugend; and what protest has been made to the Soviet authorities for their breaches of the demilitarisation clauses of the Potsdam Agreement and other agreements.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on 13th March. The latest reports on the expansion, equipment and training of para military forces in the Soviet zone of Germany are being carefully considered by the authorities of the Western occupying Powers in Germany, and I am not therefore able to make a further statement at this stage.

In view of the very alarming statements made by Mr. McCloy, will my hon. Friend see that at the earliest possible moment we know what is the size of these para-military formations or their estimated size, according to our reports?

This matter is being very carefully investigated. I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be wasted, but we do not want to make protests unless we feel we can make them in an effective manner.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of current exchange and other restrictions, he will call for a report upon the financial and other problems of permanent British residents in the Latin American Republics.

No, Sir. If the hon. Member has any particular problems in mind, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes arising out of the report of the International Court at The Hague on the question of the Human Rights Clauses of the peace treaties with Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria.

No action is appropriate at present. The Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 22nd October, 1949, referred four questions to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, of which two have now been answered in the affirmative. The remaining two only fall to be answered if, after a lapse of 30 days from 30th March, the date of the delivery of the first opinion, the Governments of Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania, have still failed to appoint their members to the various Peace Treaty Commissions. In that event the International -Court of Justice will proceed to give its opinion on the last two points, involving the question whether competent Commissions can be formed without members appointed by the three Governments.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued violation of the Human Rights Clauses of these peace treaties and, indeed, of the worsening of the situation in Eastern Europe? Is he aware, for example, of the disappearance of British and other nationals almost daily, and will he do something to expedite this matter?

I think my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions that he is most dissatisfied with the observance of human rights in these countries, but, as I have explained, this matter is at the moment in the hands of the International Court and for 30 days from 30th March at any rate it must be left to them.

Can we have from the Minister of State what he considers to be "a protest in an effective manner," because this Question rather ties up with the other one?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the United Kingdom representative on the Far Eastern Commission was consulted before approval was given by General MacArthur to the introduction by the Japanese Government of the Special Tax Bill, which levies a 55 per cent. tax on the earned incomes of foreigners resident in Japan.

General MacArthur has consulted neither His Majesty's Government nor the Far Eastern Commission about the Japanese Government's new Tax Bill, nor was it incumbent upon him to do so. The functions of the Far Eastern Commission, as laid down in the terms of reference, are to formulate broad policies and not to intervene in the day to day administration of Japan. The full text of the new Bill has not yet been received, and I should prefer to make no statement until I have seen it.

Is it not extraordinary that the Supreme Commander in Japan should take to himself the authority to sanction a Bill which will probably make it completely impossible for foreign companies to continue to operate in that territory?

As I have said, I would prefer not to make a statement before I have seen the Bill. It is not even clear at the moment that the Bill necessarily requires the sanction of the Supreme Commander.

Is it not a matter of broad policy, as mentioned by the Minister of State, that a decision should go forward—which should have had the attention of the Commission—which must have the effect, in the end, of thrusting out of Japan nearly every foreign firm?

It is not true that these recommendations were in the Shute Report and have been published for a long time, and that the actual tax of 55 per cent. is nothing more than what the Japanese and the Americans are being asked to pay? Is it not equally true that "The Times" report and the "Manchester Guardian" report of Saturday are looked upon by authorities as being inaccurate and, possibly, wilfully inaccurate?

I think that supplementary question illustrates the wisdom of waiting until we actually see what the proposal is in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the granting of a loan by His Majesty's Government of £3,000,000 recently to Iraq, part of the security for repayment was a charge on royalties for oil; what portion of this oil is expected to come through Haifa; and what steps he is taking in this respect.

Yes, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, this depends on the reopening of the Haifa pipeline, and on this I have as yet nothing to add to the answer given on 20th March to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. De Chair).

Does not my hon. Friend realise that before loans of this kind are made, or before arms are supplied to Iraq, an arrangement should be made whereby at least the taxpayers of this country should benefit by the oil being allowed to come to Haifa? No such arrangement should be made unless and until we are sure it can be carried into effect.

This arrangement was thought, and is thought, to be in the interests of this country, and if we had attempted to lay down the conditions suggested it might not have been possible to enter into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the biggest obstacles to the pipeline to Haifa being reopened has been the fact that the Israeli Government will not give an assurance to the Iraqi Government that oil will not be used for war purposes?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange to publish as a White Paper the official proposals of the various powers made to the United Nations relating to the international inspection and control of atomic energy and atomic weapons, together with such explanatory comment as has been offered in their support and such other comment as he may think advisable.

No, Sir. The reports of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission containing the proposals made by the various Powers, including a full exposition of His Majesty's Government's views, and the records of the meetings of the Commission, at which the views of members were expressed, are all on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Office.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there are large numbers of responsible people who would like to form their own views upon the originals, and that they have not either the time or the facilities to make the considerable research that would be necessary for them to trace the documents through all the channels to which my hon. Friend refers?

I appreciate that all these original documents and the account of the discussions are voluminous, but, the last document to which I referred—the Five-Power statement—is a reasonably concise statement setting out the rival views and the issues at stake, and I think my hon. Friend will find that a fairly convenient form in which to study them.

But is my hon. Friend aware that even those of us who have been studying this matter as much as we can for five years find it exceedingly difficult to discover exactly where the differences exist? May I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, because, we ought to make our position quite clear to the whole country?

I will certainly consider that, but the last document to which I referred sets out fairly clearly what are the differences.

But does not my hon. Friend agree that the last document to which he referred—though I have no doubt that it was carefully and objectively prepared—nevertheless puts the different views and proposals from the point of view of one side, and that many people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—would like to see in a readily accessible form the actual proposals and the actual arguments in favour of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech:"]—on the part, of, those who made them?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the serious Japanese competition existing in East Africa as regards textiles; and what steps he is taking to safeguard British interests in the textile market in that country.

I am aware of the figures of imports of textiles into East Africa. These show that imports of cotton textiles from Japan in 1949 were less than one-third of those in 1939, while imports from this country were four times as large as those in 1939. Within the total allocation to each Colony of sterling for purchases in Japan, the quantity of textile imports to be licensed is a matter for the Colonial Governments to decide in the light of the territories' requirements. I am going further into this matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese imports are steadily increasing? Will he take drastic action now, before it is too late to protect our home industries?

I know that imports from Japan are increasing. As I have said, I am in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade about the matter.

Will the Minister encourage certain British firms who are anxious to start textile industries in East Africa, who have been hampered at every turn by ordinances and regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are given their licences and allowed to get on with the job at the earliest possible moment?

That is another matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress there has been in the plans for increasing tobacco production in the railing belt of Northern Rhodesia; and what action he proposes to accelerate this development.

I have asked the Governor for the details of the progress made since my predecessor wrote to the hon. Member on 27th October, and will write to him as soon as I receive the reply.

In view of the importance to this country of the increase in this crop, will the right hon. Gentleman see that urgent action is taken?

Yes, as soon as I receive the reply I will go into the matter fully.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the words "railing belt" mean?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the adverse criticisms of the Colonial Development Corporation made by the Governor of British Honduras in his review of the state of the Colony on 20th December, 1949; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to deal with the criticisms there made.

I am aware that the Governor expressed some disappointment with the progress made. Since then, and following the re-valuation of the British Honduras dollar on 31st December last, the Colonial Development Corporation have announced the resumption of work on their development projects.

In view of the manifold difficulties of this very loyal Colony, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make sure that there is no ground for future complaint?

I hope that the hon. Member heard the announcement this week about the new proposal for guaranteeing sugar supplies from British Honduras.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that the present Government policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Parliamentary Questions dealing with the day-to-day administration of nationalised industries frequently deprives hon. Members of the opportunity of challenging Ministers on matters of public importance; and if he will consider referring the matter to an all-party committee for examination and report.

asked the Lord President of the Council, as there is so much of the taxpayers' money involved in the activities of the various nationalised industries, if he will take steps to change the policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Questions dealing with matters of importance connected with such activities.

The Government are anxious that there shall be all reasonable opportunities for Parliamentary discussion of the socialised industries, but the admission of Questions on day-to-day administration would be inconsistent with the principle that the boards shall be free from detailed Ministerial or Parliamentary supervision of their commercial operations. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on 7th June, 1948, when he said that he would be prepared to exercise his discretion to direct the acceptance of Questions asking for a statement to be made on matters about which information had been previously refused, provided that, in his opinion, the matters were of sufficient public importance to justify this concession. The hon. Members may also have under-estimated the opportunities for putting Questions down under the existing rules.

Nationalised.

I ask the Opposition not to engage in these philosophical arguments. But in each case they cover a wide range and, in addition to matters of general policy, broadly they include the responsibilities of Ministers in connection with—among other matters—the appointment, salaries and conditions of service of board members; programmes of research and development; programmes of education and training; borrowing by the boards; form of accounts and audits; annual reports; pensions schemes and compensation for displacement; the appointment of consumers' councils and other matters connected with their organisation and operation. Under Mr. Speaker's Ruling, Questions may also be put down about matters of "public importance" for answer at the Minister's discretion, even though they deal with points for which he has no specific responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, passenger services on considerable stretches of railway in rural parts of Scotland are being cut; that when I sought to put questions to the Minister on these matters of public importance to thousands of people the Questions were turned down; that that type of problem is not unusual; and that, therefore, there does seem to be, in the national interests, a case for reviewing the present procedure in the House?

As regards transport, I think the hon. Gentleman is on a weak point. As far as the Transport Commission are concerned, they have dealt, by correspondence—in which, I think, hon. Members perhaps get more satisfaction sometimes than by Questions to Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let this be considered apart from sheer partisan political prejudice. This is another example of sheer political prejudice where it ought not to arise.

When the right hon. Gentleman says "socialised industries "does he mean, "nationalised industries"? If so, is he aware that "nationalised" is the term used in the statutes and not "socialised"? Can he say why he takes such great care to avoid all mention of nationalisation?

If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not well fitted to draw a subtle distinction between "nationalised" and "socialised." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not an occasion to debate the matter, but I think the term "socialised" is a perfectly legitimate term, and I think it is right that great public monopolies—great public concerns—should be the subject of social answerability as distinct from private monopolies, which answer to the antisocial irresponsibility—

Oh!

To help those not so well fitted as the right hon. Gentleman to split these ideological straws, would he explain to us on these benches why, in describing one of these great public monopolies, he described it at the beginning of his answer as a socialised industry and, at the end, as a nationalised industry? Had it changed during that period?

That is a perfect illustration of my tolerance and my broadness of view.

Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inform himself a little more accurately as to what is happening in the transport industry at present? Is he aware that the whole machinery for safeguarding the consumer has completely broken down and that no Question in connection with these diverse problems can get past the Table?

If the hon. Member would approach these matters in less of the atmosphere of fierceness and partisan prejudice and more in the atmosphere of enlightened political science, he would do much better.

In view of the difficulties in asking Questions about nationalised industries at Question Time, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an inquiry is necessary in order to put them on to a uniform basis?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature and the undemocratic spirit of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.