asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what international arrangements there are for facilities covering long-distance flights over barren territory, having in mind the recent air accident in the Sahara.

It is the responsibility of the sovereign state concerned to provide adequate navigational aids and facilities for search and rescue within its territory. All these facilities are planned and agreed internationally, and are reviewed at Regional Meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

In view of the great suffering of the passengers and crew of a Hermes aircraft that had to land in the Sahara, will any representations be made to this international body in an effort to see that in future helicopters will be much more readily available?

As I think the hon. Member knows, this particular accident is being investigated by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. I think it would be wrong of me to make any sort of statement in advance of the receipt of his report, but certainly the point that the hon. Member has made will be considered.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to make a statement to the House when the inquiry is completed, because there is considerable concern that the aircraft was 1,300 miles off its course? Will he do that at the earliest opportunity?

I shall certainly raise that matter with my right hon. Friend when the report is received.

Do the terms of reference of the inquiry to be carried out by the Chief Inspector include the question of rescue facilities available, or are they concerned only with the causes of the accident?

I am afraid that I was not accurate in my reply to the first supplementary question. The inquiry is, of course, carried out by the French authorities, but the Chief Inspector, or one of his representatives, will be present as an observer for this country. The responsibility for the inquiry as to the cause of the accident, like the responsibility for rescue, rests with the State in whose territory the crash takes place.

What reserve supplies of food and water are carried in aircraft on flights of this type?

I am afraid I should want notice of a question like that.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how far the recent helicopter flight over the South Bank site has demonstrated that the site is technically in a suitable position for use as a helicopter passenger station.

The flight helped to confirm that the site is technically suitable, but there are, of course, other considerations to be taken into account in selecting an airstop.

Whatever the considerations, will the responsible authorities endeavour to come to some finality, because helicopters will be the travel of the future, and it is necessary to get the South Bank site going to encourage other local authorities to provide sites?

I am certainly aware of the great importance of the development of the helicopter. We are also aware that an early decision is desirable. However, I think it would be misleading the public if the impression were given that the regular operation of helicopters to a point in the Metropolitan area is likely to be possible in the very near future.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, for the better protection of passengers, he will now require the installation of backward-facing seats in aircraft.

The full benefit from the installation of backward-facing seats can be obtained only if the seats and their attachments are strengthened to withstand the deceleration forces encountered at the time of a crash. Such strengthening involves an addition to the weight of the aircraft with corresponding economic penalties. These practical problems are being studied.

But has not experience shown backward-facing seats to be a help in saving life in the event of a crash, and has not the time now come when, despite the economic considerations referred to by the hon. Gentleman, steps now should be taken to ensure the maximum possible protection against death in case of accident?

It is not merely an economic matter. I agree that there are advantages in backward-facing seats, but it is also a technical matter, and technical experts themselves would not give an unanimous and clear opinion on the relative merits of backward-facing seats and a strengthened and improved form of forward-facing seats. However, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is very much aware of the great importance of maintaining the highest possible safety factor in civil aviation, particularly in view of the great improvements in safety in civil aviation that have already taken place.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether the application recently made by a private Scottish company to operate air services in Scotland is, under his regulations, required to be considered initially by the Air Transport Advisory Council.

The future organisation for air services in Scotland presents a special case and my right hon. Friend does not at present contemplate that it should be dealt with by application through the Air Transport Advisory Council in the ordinary way.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that under the new policy this will be a special case; and does he mean to say that in precisely these more important and controversial cases the protection which the Advisory Council is alleged to provide will not in fact be given?

What I said was that special considerations apply in the case of Scotland. In matters like this the House always recognises that special considerations apply in the case of Scotland. There is however a very great difference between internal services, where it is a question of the possibility of superseding existing services, and external services, where it is merely a question of new services or new types of service.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the public Corporation has met, in the most excellent fashion, every demand made upon it in Scotland to date for civil air transport?

My right hon. Friend will certainly bear all relevant considerations in mind.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the nationalised Corporations are doing nothing of the kind, and that there is a large area of Scotland which is entirely free from any form of air service which we used to have under private enterprise?

I think that was covered by my previous answer.

Would the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be careful not to interfere with the Scottish services until he makes quite sure that it is not disturbing the well-balanced arrangements where aircraft serve the public for civil aviation purposes, and also for the Highlands Health Service and many other public utilities?

My right hon. Friend will certainly not make any change until he is convinced that such a change is in the general public interest.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many routes have been allocated to private air operators over the past three years; and in how many cases have the services not been started, or have been started and since terminated.

Over the past three years, 226 applications for associate agreements involving 148 routes have been provisionally approved. Of the services covered by these applications, 90 were never started and 15 were terminated before the expiration of the period for which the services were approved.

In view of the number of apparently irresponsible applications, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any penalty attaches to those operators who make applications for licences, are granted the licences, and do not fulfil them?

The majority of these applications which were made and subsequently not completed took place during the tenure of office of the previous Government; and in fact during the tenure of office of the hon. Gentleman asking the Question. This is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is considering an alteration in the terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council.

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that those applications were for minor services; that under the new policy these new services will be very important and likely to damage the forward planning of the Corporation; and in these new circumstances does he not think it is essential to have some penalty on irresponsible applicants?

The new policy is to be governed by the new terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council.

What is the use of reconstituting and strengthening the Advisory Council and giving it new terms of reference, and then by-passing it in respect of what ought to be a very important part of its functions?

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation to what extent it is the practice of the airways Corporations to consult with him in regard to any proposal for a change in freight rates or mail-carrying rates.

It is the normal practice of both Corporations to consult my right hon. Friend about proposals for changes in freight or mail rates.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there have been any consultations about the changes in mail rates; and will he undertake to try to end the anomalous position under whch the short-haul operator is paid less than the long-haul operator?

The final decision on mail rates does not rest with my right hon. Friend, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the importance of this to the Corporations, and we do keep in very close touch with the other authorities concerned.

That is not quite good enough. Is the Parliamentary Secretary following on the good work of his predecessor in this matter?

I should be delighted to follow on any of the good work of my predecessor.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what traffic rights exist for British airlines within the American zone of Germany.

B.E.A. have no traffic rights on sectors wholly within the American zone of Germany. B.E.A. have full commercial traffic rights at Frankfurt for services to London and Brussels and at Munich for services to Dusseldorf and London.

Is it not a fact that the airlines of certain other foreign countries have traffic rights in the American zone; and if so, is it not rather extraordinary that we have not?

It is because we are their allies.

The whole question of who is to have traffic rights within Germany is settled by a tripartite body on which the United Kingdom Government and the American and French Governments are represented. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that United Kingdom operators are receiving their fair share of operating rights in this respect.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation why no traffic rights exist for British European Airways between Frankfurt and Munich.

I understand that the Tripartite Civil Aviation Board, representing the Allied High Commission in Germany, was unable to grant British European Airways' application for traffic rights between Frankfurt and Munich, because there are already five airlines operating between these points who provide ample capacity for local travel requirements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take further action to provide for the representation of the Central Peoples' Government of China in the United Nations organisation.

I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to similar Questions asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 18th June.

Does the Minister not realise that the time has gone for relying upon technicalities in this fundamental matter which affects the lives of millions of people; and will he undertake to do everything possible to see that as many nations as possible are represented in the United Nations organisation?

I do not agree that the war in Korea or the operations in Korea are technicalities. I think that when an armistice is concluded there we may hope to make some progress over this difficult matter.

rose—

Mr. Sydney Silverman.

Does the Minister not realize—

Mr. Sydney Silverman.

On a point of order—

I understood there was a reference in the answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

On a point of order. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, has misrepresented me in his answer. He replied that I had said or implied that the war in Korea was a technicality. I did not mention the war in Korea. Far be it from me to suggest that it is a technicality.

That is not a point of order. Mr. Sydney Silverman.

Will the Minister bear in mind that since the answer to which he referred only made the point that nothing could be done until the war in Korea was over and implied that something might be done when that occurred, many Members of the House of Commons and the other place have had the advantage of hearing a speech by the American Secretary of State, in which he said that any discussion of the recognition of the Chinese Government or its admission to the United Nations was purely academic, and that he could see no conditions in the foreseeable circumstances in which it would be anything else?

That statement of policy seems to support what I said earlier. I certainly did not mean to suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was suggesting that the operations in Korea were a technicality. What he did suggest was that the present situation was a technical situation causing delay in considering this matter, and what I am pointing out is that the condition precedent to making progress over this matter, which is a difficult matter, is an armistice in Korea.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the presence in the field of nearly one million Chinese troops in action against United Nations' Forces is hardly a very good qualification for representation at U.N.O.?

I entirely agree.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that there is a most fundamental difference between saying that this is a matter to which we could agree once the present hostilities were over and saying that this is a matter to which we could not agree in any foreseeable circumstances; and in view of that deep discrepancy between the policy of this country and the policy of the United States on this most important matter, will he not consider whether any step ought not to be taken in good time to reconcile those differences, or, if not, to put our point of view to the opinon of the other members of the United Nations, or to the International Court?

I think our view is perfectly clear, and it is the view of the Government which preceded us. There is a difference of view on the part of other Governments, but it seems to me that it is hypothetical until we get the essential condition precedent fulfilled, which is an armistice in Korea.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the negotiations for an armistice in Korea have now been proceeding for nearly a year and have now apparently reached a deadlock, he will consider proposing the summoning of a special meeting of the Assembly of the United Nations to consider the situation.

No, Sir. While the armistice talks are still in progress and the possibility of resolving the deadlock that has arisen there exists, I do not consider that the summoning of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly would be necessary or desirable.

Are there not many difficult and intractable subjects, such as the exchange of prisoners, the position of Syngman Rhee, the political direction of the war and the possibility of establishing an honourable peace, which might be discussed with beneficial results by an early meeting of the Assembly?

My experience of these meetings of the General Assembly is that opportunity is taken to use that body as a forum for propaganda and, as far as the armistice proceedings are concerned, I think that such a proceeding would cause delay.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the United Nations ever discuss the war in Korea and its implication and possible repercussions?

At the last meeting of the General Assembly we were very anxious that while the armistice negotiations were continuing the General Assembly should not discuss the matter, because we were certain that if they did discuss the matter in the way that other matters had been discussed it would raise tempers on both sides and make an armistice more difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that Great Britain shall become immediately represented in the truce talks now taking place in Korea.

I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement which I made to the House yesterday.

Does the Minister agree that the events of the last week have stressed the importance of the British point of view being expressed and implemented in these talks?

As I tried to say to the House yesterday, I do not think that the alteration of our representation on the armistice delegation will make any difference at all. I think that these talks are being very competently handled now.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that those who have sons and husbands who are prisoners in Korea and those who have sons and husbands who are fighting in Korea would feel that the best interests of these men were looked after if we were directly represented at these talks?

That is a matter which I should have thought most certainly ought to have been borne in mind when this delegation was set up when our predecessors had responsibility, but I do not feel that this is the appropriate time for a change in the delegation; but the fact which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is certainly one to be borne in mind.

Are we to understand that the war in Korea is now continuing on the question of the repatriation of prisoners? Is that a sufficient reason to continue the war in Korea? Cannot we get an armistice and allow this question of repatriation to stand over?

We would be very willing to do that, but one thing which we are not going to agree to do is forcibly to send people back to a Communist country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that public anxiety in this country and elsewhere would be greatly relieved if a decision were taken to re-screen the prisoners in Korea by an impartial international commission, whether such action was agreeable to the Communist delegates at Panmunjom or not, thereby establishing a principle calculated to impress the non-Communist world; and what steps he is taking to try to get this done.

As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 25th June, this suggestion has been put forward and has been discussed with interested Governments. The most important thing now is to improve the prospects of achieving an armistice, and I am doubtful whether any re-screening would achieve this unless both sides agreed beforehand to abide by the results.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that if this decision were taken the Communist negotiators would no longer be able to describe the screening of prisoners as a fraud, and will he say how far the discussions he has just mentioned have gone?

I quite agree that the advantage of a re-screening now would be to deprive the Chinese Government of that propaganda point. On the other hand, I am not at all satisfied myself that impartial re-screening would in fact assist the armistice. I think that a formula on a rather different line has to be sought.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Opposition in no uncertain terms that it is quite impossible to play lawn tennis with a man who will not send the ball back?

Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling amongst Scottish soldiers in Korea that they should be screened and have an opportunity of being repatriated to their own country?

All I can say is that I found absolutely no trace of any such feeling.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Indian delegation which has recently visited China, which says that the delegation gained the impression that the Chinese Government and people were weary of the Korean war and might make peace if a face-saving formula were put forward by a neutral nation; and whether he will investigate the possibility of action along such lines.

Yes, Sir. In consultation with other interested Governments, we are urgently trying to find a formula which would break the present deadlock at Panmunjom.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that India and China have been on terms of friendship for 1,000 years, and that there is no Power in Asia so capable of influencing China as India and the spiritual forces she represents?

I can appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is certainly a factor which Her Majesty's Government are bearing in mind. There is, however, one other matter which arises out of this Question. He refers to a face-saving formula, and if a formula is in fact to save faces it is probably not best described in that manner.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated value of the installations destroyed in the raid on Korean power stations on 23rd June.

The cost of the original construction of these plants is estimated at about 200 million United States dollars. I have no information as to the value of the parts destroyed.

In view of the fact that we are pledged to a policy of helping to rehabilitate and reconstruct Korea, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say how much greater the financial contribution of this country will be for that purpose in view of the damage caused by this raid about which we were not informed?

Of course, attacks on military targets do involve certain costs, but the point is to try and maintain the security of the United Nations troops.

Would the Minister give the comparable cash figure to represent the value of lives lost had these bombs been dropped on Chinese troops instead of on bricks and mortar?

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what was the value of these power stations at the time when the Japanese built most of them? Could he further say what is the estimated present value of the installations in providing radar and other services for planes which may potentially be used against United Nations troops in the field?

I do not think that that is a calculation which could be made in terms of money, but it is relevant to consider it in terms of human life.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate of the numbers of the civilian population living in the area of the Korean power stations was taken before the air raids were ordered.

Account was taken of this factor before the attacks were made. The plants attacked were in maintainous country removed from any large centres of population.

Could the Minister assure us that the fate of the civilian population is always taken into account in these raids, and is he not aware that recently a colleague of his, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, defended large-scale bombing of civilians on the ground that it was not practicable to give them any warning?

I am quite certain that the possible damage to the civilian population is always considered in deciding whether a target should be taken on or not.

Can my hon. Friend say how many people were living in South Korea before they were wantonly attacked by the North Korean Communists?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present arrangements for broadcasts on behalf of the United Nations to China and North Korea, respectively; and how the content of these broadcasts is decided.

I understand that American transmitters in various places carry news programmes prepared by the staff of the United Nations in the Chinese and Korean languages.

Is there no continuous liaison between the various broadcasting stations, and if that is the case, would it not be desirable that there should be such liaison in view of the great importance of getting across to the people of China and North Korea the reasons why we are fighting in Korea and emphasising that we bear them no ill will?

The hon. Gentleman's question related to broadcasts on behalf of the United Nations. I was dealing with broadcasts which are under the supervision of the United Nations Secretariat at the United Nations headquarters.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend indicate to us what proportion of the Chinese and North Korean populations are in possession of high-powered wireless receiving sets?

No. Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the International Red Cross organisation whether any reply has yet been received by them from the Chinese Government in Pekin to their offer made in March last to conduct an investigation into the charges of bacteriological warfare.

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced on 29th April that no reply had been received from the Chinese authorities to their message of 12th March. There has been no further development since that date.

Is it not significant that, after having launched a world wide propaganda campaign alleging this monstrous crime against the Allied Forces in Korea, the Chinese Government have refused to allow impartial investigation, and that only yesterday the Soviet Government's representative at the Security Council announced that he was going to veto the proposal for independent Red Cross investigation?

I quite agree. I think both the actions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred are lamentable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any compensation has yet been paid by the Egyptian Government in respect of loss of life, loss of employment and damage to property, sustained by British subjects in Cairo during the riots which took place last January.

A number of British firms who suffered damage during the Cairo riots have received loans from the Egyptian Government. These loans are subject to the final assessment of damage by the Egyptian courts and do not represent compensation. Otherwise the position remains similar to that outlined in the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) on 7th May. We have since then made further representations on these points to the former Egyptian Government and will continue to do so to the new Government.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a very big feeling on this issue not only among the relatives of those concerned but also among a much wider public, and will he state what further steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to enforce the payment of compensation for these very dastardly outrages?

We cannot enforce compensation from another Government, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to make representations to the new Egyptian Government. We have already put in a statement of claim in respect of material damage done during the riots, and, in addition, Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo have asked for payments of £200,000 and 100,000 Canadian dollars to the dependents of those killed and injured during the raids. We shall continue to press those claims.

Would the Joint Under-Secretary inform his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the fact that we cannot enforce compensation because he took a very different view in regard to Albania?

Has my hon. Friend taken no further action with regard to obtaining compensation for those civil servants who have been dismissed in breach of contract and are now in this country living in very unfortunate and depressing circumstances?

A certain amount of compensation has been paid to those people who were employed by the Egyptian Government, namely, three months salary in lieu of notice, but we do not consider that that compensation has been adequate and we are still pressing their case. With regard to teachers employed in private schools—not Government schools—legal action has already been started, and Her Majesty's Embassy will give all the necessary help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the representations he has made regarding the recognition by the Greek and other Governments of King Farouk of Egypt as the King of the Sudan.

Her Majesty's Government's views on the question of King Farouk's title are well known to the House. Recognition of a change in the title involves in the eyes of many Sudanese recognition of a change in the status of the Sudan and we are pledged not to recognise such a change without consultation with the Sudanese. This point of view has been put strongly to all the Governments concerned. I therefore regret the action taken by the Governments which have recognised the new title without waiting to hear what the Sudanese had to say. I am glad at least that some of the Governments have made it plain that recognition is not intended to have any political significance.

Is it correct that there was an understanding between the countries associated with N.A.T.O., including Greece, that they should take no action which would embarass the present negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the Egyptian Government?

Such an understanding most certainly did exist.

Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that this was a question of consultation only with the Sudanese people? Should not it be "agreement" rather than "consultation?"

By "consultation" we most certainly implied "agreement."

And willing agreement.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity of discussing this matter recently with Mr. Acheson and, if so, could he say whether the State Department now appreciate the Sudanese point of view?

This subject was discussed between my right hon. Friend and the United States Secretary of State. The United States Government have consistently supported Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the discussions that have been going on between the Umma Party in the Sudan and the Government of Egypt on the question of Sudan's relations with Egypt.

Although they welcomed this exchange of views, Her Majesty's Government were not a party to the discussions between the Egyptian Government and representatives of Sayed Abdel Rahman E1 Mandi. I am not in a position to give the House any information as to their outcome. Her Majesty's Government are glad, however, to see any direct contact between the Egyptian Government and the Sudanese which may lead to a better understanding.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the recent change of Prime Ministers in Egypt has any connection with the return of the Umma Party to the Sudan and the consequent developments there?

I should prefer not to be drawn into commenting on the new Egyptian Government at so early a stage in their development.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Government of Iceland in reply to his last note concerning the extension of their territorial waters; and what further action he is taking to safeguard our position.

No reply has yet been received to the Note addressed to the Icelandic Government on 18th June. I should prefer to await the Icelandic reply before making any further statement.

In view of the long delay in replying to the last Note which was sent, could the Under-Secretary state whether any consideration has been given to the suggestion that an international conference might be held to deal with this problem?

That question is most certainly under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, but I would ask the House not to draw me into further comment upon this matter until we have received a reply from the Icelandic Government.

Could not the Foreign Office give a delicate hint to Iceland that good will is a thing that works on both sides? Fishermen are getting very concerned about the sever restrictions which have been placed on their opportunities to earn a livelihood.

The Foreign Office have given more than a delicate hint to the Icelandic Government to that effect, as has already been stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to make it clear to the Government of the United States of America that public opinion in this country will not tolerate the support of any military action which may result from the activities of the Chinese National forces in Formosa.

In his declaration of 27th June, 1950, President Truman ordered the United States Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. At the same time he called on the Chinese Nationlist authorities to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland of China. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, this "neutralisation" of Formosa remains the policy of the United States Government and it would therefore be unnecessary to take any steps such as those envisaged in this Question.

In view of the serious situation that might arise through an action by the Nationalist forces in Korea, would the Minister of State continue to keep the United States Government—his opposite number—informed as to the state of public opinion in this country in regard to this matter?

I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 26th February, when he said that few adventures could be less successful or fruitful than for Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to plunge on to the mainland.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Mr. Chiang Kai-shek yesterday, favouring the bombing of industries in China, and saying that he hoped the time would come when he would lead Formosans on to the mainland against China? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman dissociate himself from being allied with these plans?

I adhere to the form of words use by the Prime Minister which, I think meet the point of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the conference recently held in London of Her Majesty's ambassadors and ministers in Middle Eastern countries.

I will, with permission, arrange for the text of the Press communiqu£ of 24th June, together with a list of those who attended the Conference, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I would only add that my right hon. Friend regards these periodic meetings as of considerable value, not only because of the opportunity which they afford for reviewing and discussing at first-hand all developments affecting the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but also because they serve to demonstrate the importance which Her Majesty's Government continue to attach to the security, prosperity and independence of the Middle East.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this meeting provides encouraging evidence of the patience and skill with which the Foreign Secretary is improving our relations with the Middle East, as compared with a year ago?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the appointments of Mr. Guy Burgess and Mr. Donald Maclean were officially terminated.

The appointments of Mr. Guy Burgess and Mr. Donald Maclean were terminated on 1st June, 1952, with effect from 1st June, 1951, the date on which they were suspended from duty.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the reason for this extraordinary delay of one year in finally deciding to dispense with the services of these two men?

It is because the search for them was continuing. Indeed, the search is still continuing. But, having been absent without leave for a year, my right hon. Friend has considered that as a disciplinary measure their appointments should be terminated and that they should be dismissed the Service.

Is it to be understood that disciplinary measures can be applied to absconding Government civil servants only after they have absconded for 12 months? Is that an essential qualification which must be taken into account before people are given the sack?

No, Sir.

Was not this information given about a fortnight ago in answer to one of my Questions?

In view of the fact that among large sections of the Press, during slack periods, it is becoming customary to fill in with stories about these two gentlemen, could the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it is a fact that prior to the departure of these two gentlemen they were in fact already being considered by the Foreign Office as not quite suitable for the offices which each of them held?

That is another question and, what is more, it happened at a period when the present Government were not responsible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could address his question to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).

On a point of order. I am sorry, but this is a relevant question and I would ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a question is within the purview of a Minister and he has the information which would enable him to reply now—although he can refuse—he is in order in referring me to his predecessor and suggesting that I take advantage of the procedure which does exist in this House but which is not used, whereby one private Member can address a question to another?

I understood the reference to be somewhat jocular in its tone.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what organisation is to undertake the International Tracing Service formerly carried out by the International Refugee Organisation.

The International Tracing Service is now supervised by the Allied High Commission for Germany. The question of its continuation under international supervision is now being discussed.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that those interested in refugees and displaced persons are very concerned that this valuable organisation should not go by default, and will he get his Department to keep a watch on it to see that it is maintained in efficiency?

Most certainly. The Foreign Office very much hope we shall be able to continue this excellent organisation, whose records are of considerable use still to Belgium and Holland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent, in his official interviews with Dr. Adenauer on the German contribution to Western Defence, the question of Germans being allowed to appeal as conscientious objectors from military service, was discussed.

This matter has not been discussed with Dr. Adenauer.

Is the Minister aware that during the last five years a large sum of British money has been spent on anti-militarist propaganda in Germany with the result that very many intelligent Germans are now conscientious objectors, and is it not time that the Government considered this matter in case these people are put into jail for being anti-militarists?

Whatever money was spent by the previous Government in converting Germans to pacifism, Her Majesty's Government have now no responsibility for it. What is now in the contract is that this is a matter of internal German law.

But is it not the case that the German Basic Law, which is the West German constitution, provides specifically that no German will be forced to serve in the military forces against his conscience?

That is perfectly true. No one may be compelled against his conscience to perform war service as a combatant under Article 4 of the Basic Law, but that does not alter the fact that it is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recently concluded pact to regulate fishing in the North Sea.

There is no inter-governmental agreement to regulate fishing in the North Sea subsequent to the Convention signed at the International Over-fishing Conference held in London in 1946. I would refer the hon. Member to a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 29th May last. The situation has not changed since that date.

Is it not the case that all the nations concerned have now ratified the 1946 agreement? If that is so, does that not mean that the agreement can now be put into force in some respects?

I am informed that Spain has not yet ratified it and that that is the only ratification still outstanding. The position has not changed since the hon. Gentleman was given the previous reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the amount of compensation offered to the Republic of San Marino in respect of damage caused in June, 1944, during aerial bombardment of the area.

Yes, Sir. In 1944 the Republic of San Marino was bombed by units of the Desert Air Force and was fought over and finally occupied by Allied Forces. The Government of San Marino subsequently submitted a claim for compensation amounting to 732 million Italian lire, approximately £421,000 at the present rate of exchange. Her Majesty's Government have consistently repudiated any legal liability for the damage caused in San Marino on the grounds that the neutrality of the Republic had previously been violated by the German occupation. But out of consideration and sympathy for the sufferings and losses caused to the citizens of the Republic through the use of their territory by the German Armed Forces, Her Majesty's Government offered, first in June, 1949, and on three subsequent occasions, an ex gratia payment of £26,000 in final settlement of any claims against Her Majesty's Government. The Government of San Marino have not hitherto felt able to accept this offer.

Would it not be more appropriate if we were to send this claim to the West German Government?

The Government of San Marino have already asked us to support a claim which they intend to make against the German Federal Government, but no such claim has yet been made. In any case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government are precluded by the Paris Agreement of 1946 from making on their own behalf or on behalf of anybody else claims for further reparations on Germany pending a definite settlement.

Yes, but could the Government not use their good offices with Dr. Adenauer to get him to pay up in this case?

No claim has been made. Therefore, no question of using our good offices with Dr. Adenauer can arise.

Can the hon. Gentleman give a rough indication of the extent of the damage, since £26,000 is a very small sum? Is it not true that this offer expires this coming Saturday, and if that is so will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the time?

It is the case that this offer expires on 3rd July, which is tomorrow. We have felt bound to set some time limit upon the acceptance of the offer by the San Marinese Government because it has been pending since June, 1949. Her Majesty's Government wish to discharge their obligations towards the San Marinese people in this matter, but we cannot go on indefinitely making this offer.

Could the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that in the claim by the Republic of San Marino it was stated that the Allied Forces were the first to violate the boundary of the country and whether there is any evidence in support of that contention? Can he also say whether their claim against us is based upon that contention, and if those facts are not accepted by us, would it not be a suitable question to refer to some kind of international third party judgment.

No, Sir. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the San Marinese Government have claimed that it was the Allied Forces who first violated their territory, but they have adduced no evidence whatsoever in support of that contention.

Would the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question?

Is it not a fact that the Government of San Marino are all Communists, and why should we finance the Communist cause?

The Government of San Marino is dominated by the Communist Party, but nevertheless Her Majesty's Government feel that they should discharge their obligation to the San Marinese people.

Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first part of my original supplementary question?

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. So far as I am aware, this sum will cover the extent of the damage caused.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the widespread disapproval in the country concerning the black market in eggs; and what results have been obtained from the investigations ordered by his Department in the Midlands.

My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware of substantial black market activity in eggs. Between 1st October, 1951, and 31st May, 1952, the number of convictions, mostly for large scale operations, was 186, eight of which were in the Midland area.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend recently said in the House that only 45 per cent. of the eggs produced in this country reached the egg grading scheme? Would he do something about this matter, so that everybody may have an equal share of eggs?

In giving that figure of 45 per cent. my right hon. Friend explained, as the hon. Lady will recall, that eggs from flocks under 25 in number can properly come on to the market free of control. However, my right hon. Friend is reexamining the whole scheme of egg control, and will take into account the point raised by the hon. Lady.

Would my hon. Friend not consider derationing eggs altogether?

The choice is between decontrol and the strengthening of enforcement.

asked the Minister of Food the foods in which the country's stocks have decreased since 1st November, 1951; and how, in the light of existing financial policy, he expects food stocks at the end of 1952 to compare with the figures for the end of 1951.

For reasons of commercial prudence my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot make any statement about our present and prospective stocks of food.

Is the Minister not aware that that kind of verbal smokescreen makes it impossible for us to form any assessment of the balance-of-payments situation?

It is the same kind of adjectival smoke-screen as was put up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Does not the hon. Gentleman remember, as he surely does, that when that answer was given by Labour Ministers it was universally condemned by Conservative Members? What does he mean by coming to this House and giving the same answer as he and his hon. Friends condemned universally?

The reasons for secrecy about commercial stocks, as about emergency stockpiling, remain unaltered.

May we have a secret Session on this subject?

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there is likely to be an exceptionally heavy crop of all kinds of home-grown fruit this year; and what steps he is taking to ensure the sale of this crop at prices which will offer a reasonable return to British growers.

My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that a heavy crop is expected of some kinds of home-grown fruit. But as will be appreciated, reductions in imports of fruit pulp and soft fruits generally will afford a measure of protection for the home grower, and my right hon. and gallant Friend will do his utmost to ensure that sugar and tinplate allocations do not restrict unduly the purchases of jam manufacturers and canners.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this year, so far, in spite of the import cuts intended, enormous quantities of foreign fruit and vegetables have been dumped here, to the detriment of our home growers? Will he say what he is going to do over the rest of this year to ensure that the home producer shall have first place in the home market?

The position is that, strawberries apart, imports of fruit for this year will amount to about one-quarter of the imports of fruit last year. I would add that it is not within the power of my right hon. and gallant Friend to ensure the sale of more than the market can absorb at prices the consumer will pay.

Is the hon. Gentleman expecting a bumper crop of raspberries?

Answer.

I do not see how any serious answer can be given.

Is it not a fact that one of the reasons for the depreciation of price that has taken place and which has seriously affected the soft fruit growers in this country is the very substantial imports of fruit pulp which took place under the previous Government?

On a point of order—and this is a real point of order. Question No. 34 has managed to get on to the Order Paper, although my own Question, which was exactly similar, was held off. Perhaps I ought to be able to get a supplementary question in.

I did not see the hon. Lady's Question which was refused at the Table, but the refusal of a Question at the Table has never been considered a valid ground for asking a supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the exceptionally large quantity of home-grown fruit which will be available for canning during the coming season, he will permit canners and jam manufacturers to provide a larger fruit content in their products.

The relevant orders prescribe only the minimum weight content for tins of canned fruit and the minimum fruit content for jam.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the minimum sugar content at present prescribed by this Department is as low as can be arranged for purposes of preservation? Would it be possible to cut it down still lower?

The Question referred to the fruit content. The jam manufacturer is free to increase the fruit content above the minimum, provided he feels that a sale can be found at the higher price that would be necessary.

What is the rest of this jam?