asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now prepared to ratify the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom's delegation to the Sixth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation sponsored a resolution inviting States to become parties to that Convention.

The text of the Convention is at present being studied by Her Majesty's Government and by the Governments of overseas territories for the conduct of whose international relations Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Subject to certain reservations as provided for in Article 42, Her Majesty's Government hope to be in a position to submit an Instrument of Ratification to Parliament within a few months.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman try and expedite the matter a little bit more than that, particularly in view of the fact that four major countries have already intimated their intention to ratify this very important Convention, that a large number of other countries will follow our example, and because we ourselves have sponsored this particular Convention?

I am aware of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is our desire that ratification should take place as quickly as possible, but there are a number of complicated matters which still have to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Nations Disarmament Commission has completed its collection of figures of the approximate arms expenditure of the nations of the world; and if he will press for its publication.

The United Nations Disarmament Commission has not undertaken the collection of any such figures.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to the last part of the Question about the publication of the figures?

As the figures are not being collected, it is difficult to see how they can be published. At the moment, quite frankly, our representative is not so interested in the financial particulars as in the other particulars which so far the Soviet Union have not supplied in any shape or form.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the compilation of these figures would be extremely interesting to those interested in the question?

I do not think the financial aspect is as important as getting the other matters cleared up first.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why any figures which would be of service to the enemy should be published?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he expects that the first report of the Disarmament Commission will be ready by 1st June, as required by paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the General Assembly passed on 11th January, 1952; and what proposals have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission for inclusion in the report.

I understand that the Disarmament Commission will have its first report ready by 1st June. A general statement of principles on which a disarmament programme might be based was tabled by the American Delegation in the Commission on 24th April, and these were supported by Her Majesty's Government. Further proposals are in preparation, though I cannot yet say whether these will be tabled in time for inclusion in the report of 1st June.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether satisfactory progress has been made in these discussions?

No, I think it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that satisfactory progress has not been made. A great deal too much use of this Commission is being made for purposes of international propaganda, and in fact there was a refusal on the part of the Soviet delegation even to agree on the agenda until the end of March.

Would the Minister consider letting us have this first report in the form of a White Paper at an early date?

I will certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will present a White Paper outlining Her Majesty's Government's disarmament policy and comparing it with the policy of the United States of America as expressed at the Second Disarmament Commission meeting in March last.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the United States Government on Disarmament is expressed in the terms of the resolution passed by the Sixth Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 11th January, 1952. This is annexed to Cmd. 8547 which deals with the work of the Assembly's session as a whole.

May I assume that, broadly speaking, Her Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the six points put forward by Mr. Ben Cohen on behalf of the American Government?

That is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government are now allowing British tankers to pass through the Suez Canal.

Large numbers of British tankers have been and are still passing to and fro through the Suez Canal. I presume therefore that the hon. Member is referring to the passage through the Canal of tankers bound for Haifa. So far as I am aware, the situation in this respect has not changed since the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), on 30th January.

Is nothing being done to force the passage of these tankers through to Haifa? Is not the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was in opposition, roared like a rabbit for resolute action, and even said that he would force them through with the protection of the Royal Navy? Is nothing being done to implement those promises and threats made by the Foreign Secretary when in opposition?

It would not be correct for Her Majesty's Government to take unilateral action to secure the implementation by Egypt of the Security Council's Resolution of 1st September, 1951.

Have not we a statutory right to take our ships through the Suez Canal, a right established long before the United Nations was ever thought of, and why does not Her Majesty's Government assert their rights in this matter?

The reason why action has not been taken in this matter is that at the moment other negotiations are going on between this country and Egypt and it is not considered appropriate to raise this matter first.

Is it not true to say that these general negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and Egypt have been going on for many months and there does not appear likely to be an immediate solution? Why is it necessary to bring in other countries to solve a problem which primarily concerns only three countries, the State of Israel, Egypt, and ourselves? What is holding this up? Will not the Government be forthcoming about it?

I imagine that the present Government are actuated very much by considerations similar to those which actuated the late Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a considered statement upon the Government of Iceland's attitude over fishing in Icelandic territorial waters.

Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, a Note was addressed to the Icelandic Government on 2nd May objecting to the new Icelandic Fishery Regulations. Her Majesty's Government's objections were based on two grounds, namely (a) that one of the base lines is drawn in a manner contrary to the principles recently approved by The Hague Court and (b) that Iceland is not entitled to extend the breadth of her territorial sea, as the Regulations purport to do, from three to four miles. The Icelandic Government were asked to amend their Regulations, to take account of these objections. They have since replied, in a note dated 12th May, rejecting our request on both points.

May we take it from my right hon. and learned Friend that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to stand out strongly for British interests in this matter?

Her Majesty's Government have made strong representations throughout to the Icelandic Government in defence of British interests.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that possibly the best solution is to get together all the fishing Powers concerned to work out this very thorny problem, which cuts both ways?

Certainly, I will bear in mind my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Is not this matter related to the whole question of over-fishing? Is it true that the prohibitions placed upon foreign fishermen apply equally to Icelandic fishermen? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether that statement really represents the facts?

That is certainly so. In fact, there is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that matter, which I will answer in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what undertakings Her Majesty's Government have sought from the Icelandic Government with regard to limitation of fishing by Icelandic vessels in the fishing waters which it is now proposed to restrict.

The new Icelandic regulations include a provision specifically applying them to Icelandic trawlers and seine-net fishing boats. Her Majesty's Government recently sought an assurance from the Icelandic Government that this regulation would continue to apply to Icelandic vessels.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many separate leaflets are issued with each new or renewed passport; what is the total cost of these leaflets in the last convenient year; and how much paper is consumed by them.

During the financial year 1951–52 four leaflets were issued

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that clearly there is an extravagance here? In particular, does he think it necessary to issue a special leaflet to people living in London who want to go on holiday in France telling them where they can be innoculated against yellow fever in Manchester, if they happen to be in Manchester and want to be innoculated while there against yellow fever? Does he not think that if he cuts down this extravagance it might be possible to reopen the Public Records Office?

The Government have examined this matter to see if economies can be made in these leaflets. I will certainly bear in mind the point the hon. Member has put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what obstacles there now are to Britain joining the European Defence Community as a participating member.

The obstacles remain the same as those which existed when the late Government were dealing with the question.

In view of the Prime Minister's known anxiety that Britain should join the European Defence Community as soon as possible, and in view of the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said last Wednesday that the only objection remaining was that some of these treaties would have to be re-negotiated with our enemy, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government must have a more specific attitude than that conveyed in this very vague answer?

As the hon. Member may know, there have been recently some discussions between the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Defence of the French Government with regard to the association of this country with the European Defence Community. A statement will be made upon those discussions. I think that is the most fruitful way of advance.

Is not the real answer that the reason why Britain cannot become a participating partner in the European Defence Community is that she is already the heart and head of a great Empire and not of Europe?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in 1951 at Strasbourg—and I believe he himself was present—the Prime Minister, when he proposed a European Army, said that Britain would play a full and honourable part in it? Will he explain why Her Majesty's Government have changed their attitude?

If the hon. Member will read again what the Prime Minister said, he will see that he envisaged a different form of organisation of the European Army from that contained in the E.D.C.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman a statement to make now, or will he make it very soon, as to any further undertakings or guarantees that have been just given by the Foreign Secretary in Germany, as I understand it, in relation to a guarantee with America to France concerning the European Defence Community?

That is another matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will certainly answer it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Prime Minister's speech at Strasbourg in August, 1950, because the Prime Minister envisaged exactly the Army now being built up which he then said we should join?

No, co-operate with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what international authority is now responsible for the welfare of the hard core of displaced persons now remaining; and if he will consider what action can be taken to assist these unfortunate persons.

The interests of these unfortunate people are protected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The support of those who are indigent has become the responsibility of the countries where they now reside, whether in Europe or overseas.

Is there any system of international inspection at these displaced persons camps and, if so, is it available for hon. Members to see it?

I should like to have notice of that question.

Do we understand that the High Commissioner is appealing to Governments, or is it to private charitable organisations?

That is not quite clear yet. I think he hopes to appeal to both.

Will the Government consider making a contribution, since the work of the High Commissioner must be very largely hampered unless he has adequate funds at his disposal?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government are considering this question very carefully and that they have complete sympathy for this work.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs up to what date Mr. Burgess and Mr. Maclean were in receipt of the pay and allowances attaching to their appointment.

Mr. Maclean and Mr. Burgess were in receipt of pay and allowances to 31st May, 1951.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the provisions of the Nine Power Treaty are still operative.

This is a complicated legal matter on which, I regret, I cannot yet give a full answer. As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, however, they still adhere to the principles of the Treaty in so far as they are applicable to present conditions.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the existence of this Treaty will not be allowed to prejudice the utmost development of trade by direct agreement with Chinese Government agencies? Has a reply been received from the Chinese Government with regard to the trade offers that emanated from the Moscow Conference?

As far as the second part of the supplementary question is concerned, the answer is "No." With regard to the first part, my impression is in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would prefer to examine the matter further. I propose to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman a letter, explaining rather more fully the present legal position.

I was not so much concerned with the difficulties from the Chinese end; but there are other signatories to this Treaty, and I was asking whether, in view of the fact that other nations were signatories to that Treaty, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now allow the British to develop trade with the Chinese Government?

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will await my letter to him.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is this Nine Power Treaty and which are the nine Powers?

It is a Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal, and it was signed on 6th February, 1922.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether be will make a statement on the difficulties now being experienced by British business firms in China; and what action he proposes.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 20th May.

May I ask two questions? Has there been any reaction so far from the Chinese Government to the new arrangements? Secondly, have Her Majesty's Government yet had any reply about their inquiries following the Moscow Conference?

The answer to both questions is, "No. Sir."

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the first place bear in mind that if he would like any information, in addition to the information already supplied, about anything which took place in the Moscow Conference, it is readily at his disposal in this country; and, in the second place, will he bear in mind that until the Japanese forced us out of the Chinese market by unfair trading methods, China afforded one of the most valuable of Lancashire's export markets? Will he assure the House that the Government will do nothing to put any obstacle in the way of any persons in either country cooperating to reconstruct that trade?

Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the value that there would be of trade in certain commodities between this country and China, and certainly we should include within that category the products of Lancashire. As far as the first part of the question is concerned, if anything is to come of this business it seems that the Chinese Government should make some reply to representations which we made on 28th April. I hope that they will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in drafting his reply to the protest of Marshal Tito against the proposed changes in the administration of Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste, he will call the attention of the Marshal to the situation existing in Zone B since the United States of America and Britain share with Yugoslavia responsibility to the United Nations Security Council for the administration of the Free Territory of Trieste; and whether, in view of the continued oppression of the Italian population in Zone B, he will also call the attention of Marshal Tito to Annex VI, Article 2 (a), of the Treaty of Peace with Italy, in accordance with which the Security Council of the United Nations has undertaken to ensure the protection of the basic human rights of the inhabitants.

I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 19th May. As I then said, all relevant considerations will be borne in mind in the preparation of the reply.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend not point out that over 6,000 persecuted refugees—Italians—have had to take refuge from Zone B into Zone A and that, as a result of the so-called trial of Capo d'Istria, there has been almost a complete exodus of teachers from Zone B? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate that Marshal Tito is only there as a trustee and that we are equally responsible to the United Nations for what goes on in Zone B?

I can only repeat the answer which I have given to my hon. Friend—that this matter is being carefully considered and that it would not be useful to disclose to the House at the moment the nature of the reply which Her Majesty's Government propose to deliver in due course.

Despite the accusations and counter-accusations about these zones, are the Government doing their best to carry the Yugoslav Government, no less than the Italian Government, with them in any changes it is proposed to make here?

They are the allies, not the enemies.

Steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to keep the Yugoslav Government informed of what is taking place and an endeavour has been made to point out to them as clearly as possible the implications of the cent Memorandum of Understanding. As has been said before, the purpose of Her Majesty's Government, which I am certain will be shared by all hon. Members in all parts of the House, is to see that nothing is done to prevent a settlement being reached successfully by direct conversations between the Italians and the Yugoslays themselves.

In view of the joint responsibility of Britain, the United States and Yugoslavia for these two zones, is there any machinery for consultations between the three Powers? If not, would it not be advisable to set up some permanent machinery so that there can be a constant interchange of views upon this matter?

That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that four British subjects were arrested at Buenos Aires on 15th May and are now in the Devoto Prison in that city; and whether he will protest against the arrest and imprisonment of these British subjects without any charge having been brought against them.

Yes, Sir. Four British subjects, Messrs. Bowen, Howe, Knox and Nordaby, were arrested on 15th May and accused of contravening the Argentine Anti-Trust Laws. Her Majesty's Ambassador intervened and on 23rd May all except Knox were freed. The Ambassador is continuing his efforts to secure the release of Knox and certain other British subjects who are also involved.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend not insist that Her Majesty's Ambassador demands compensation for these gentlemen who have been thrown into prison without any charge being made against them and simply in order that they might act as witnesses? In what civilised country are witnesses kept in prison until they give evidence?

The Argentine procedure provides for taking accused persons into custody for a reasonable period for questioning. After questioning, they must be either formally indicted or immediately released. Persons detained in that way may not be granted bail until after questioning. They may be released on bail as soon as they have been formally charged.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to ascertain if the Chinese Government would receive a trade mission similar to that led by Sir Leslie Boyce in 1946 in order to discuss the possibilities of any future trading arrangements and to deal with outstanding problems of liquidation of assets.

A Note was presented on 18th April to the Central People's Government of China saying that Her Majesty's Government would welcome any Chinese proposals to increase China's trade with the United Kingdom. No reply has been received to this Note. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement in the House on 20th May in which my right hon. Friend said that a suggestion by the British firms operations in China that they should set up a form of trade organization was conveyed officially to the Central People's Government.

In view of the very moderate tone adopted by the Foreign Secretary on 20th May and the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given, may I stress this point? Will he at least consult members of the Boyce Mission to China to see what they think about such a proposal at the present moment?

Has Her Majestys Government ever received any reply to any Notes which they have addressed to the Chinese People's Government?

That is a question which I should like to see on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the decision of The Hague Court in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries dispute, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to extend the limit of British territorial waters from three to four miles.

No, Sir. The decision of The Hague Court related not to the breadth of territorial waters but to the method of delimiting the base line from which territorial waters are measured. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Court's judgment does not in any way affect the position that it is contrary to international law for a State to claim a territorial belt of more than three miles unless very special historical circumstances can be invoked. In the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case, Her Majesty's Government admitted that Norway was entitled to a belt four miles in width precisely because of special historical circumstances. Norway has a limit of four miles which goes back in time to a period earlier than the adoption of three miles by any country.

While agreeing with the Minister of State that this matter is not likely to be settled satisfactorily by unilateral action, may I ask him whether the Foreign Secretary will consider convening a conference urgently of the signatories to the Fishing Convention to consider this matter?

That is a suggestion I will certainly bear in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the decision of The Hague Court in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries dispute, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the adoption of the base line principle for British territorial waters and to which headlands it would apply.

The future policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the method of delimitation of British territorial waters has not yet been settled, but it is being studied in the light of the judgment of The Hague Court in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries dispute. In these circumstances, it is not possible to say which headlands would become base points if it were decided to adopt the principles enunciated by the Court.

While appreciating the difficulties that beset this problem, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will bear in mind the grim paradox that no British trawler can operate in the Moray Firth inside a line drawn between Duncansby Head and Rattray Head, whereas foreign trawlers have been coming in during the last 50 years and have done much to destroy the livelihood of the largely indigenous fishing population along that coast?

I am quite aware of the point my hon. Friend has put forward and I have considerable sympathy, but the fact is that in the areas outside territorial waters foreign trawlers cannot be excluded, but they are not permitted to land in the United Kingdom any fish they catch in those waters.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that our people along our northern coasts feel that this principle seems always to operate against us, and never in our favour?

Will the Minister have this matter referred to the White Fish Authority for an adequate report?

I consider that the proper course to pursue is to continue our negotiations with the Icelandic Government on this matter and to bear in mind the suggestion which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) have put forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the United States of America have promised arms assistance to Iran; and if, in view of the effect this will have on Middle East defence in general and our conversations with Egypt in particular, he will state the extent to which Her Majesty's Government participated in the negotiations prior to the grant of this assistance.

The United States Government have given military assistance to Persia since 1948. I understand that United States legislation required the Persian Government to give certain assurances at the beginning of 1952 and that as these assurances had not been given by the 8th January, military assistance was suspended on that date. After an exchange of notes between the Persian Government and the United States Government on 24th April, the assistance was resumed. Her Majesty's Government did not participate in the negotiations on this subject.

Is it not strange that the United States, having suspended arms assistance to Persia, should resume arms assistance to this country with whom we are in dispute, without having consulted Her Majesty's Government at all? May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether representations had been made to the United States Government upon this matter; and whether there is any prospect of our being consulted before this promise materialises?

The question as to whether or not the United States Government should give assistance to Persia is entirely a matter for that Government and not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility. However, this is a matter upon which there have been discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

Is it not an unusual and strange doctrine that the United States with whom we are in friendly relations should render arms assistance to a country with whom we are in unfriendly relations without Her Majesty's Government being consulted at all? Are we to be completely ignored by the United States in such matters?

The United States Government were continuing a course of conduct which they have pursued since 1948.

I am sorry to persist, but can we have an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that before the United States actually send arms to Persia, we shall have an opportunity of making representations?

That is another question. If the right hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper, I will consider it.

What are the nature and dimensions of this assistance?

I should require notice of that question.