asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his reply to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates for changes in the structure of management of Her Majesty's dockyards will be made before the end of this session.

I regret that the reply is "No, Sir." The hon. Member may be assured that the report on the outstanding recommendations will be sent as soon as possible.

Can the Civil Lord say, in view of the fact that the recommendations were made over a year ago, whether the reason for the extraordinary delay is really the very serious consideration by the Admiralty of the recommendations made for improving the structure of the dockyards or whether, as it appears, it is due to the effect of a stonewalling policy?

Most certainly serious consideration is given to these matters. They raise very far reaching issues, and I do not think it would be advantageous to consider them with undue haste.

Is the Civil Lord aware that commercial men frequently know very little about the movement and working of ships in port, and ships' officers know very little about the commercial side of the undertaking? Would he consider making a commercial man manager of a port and a ship's officer or admiral responsible for the marine side of the work?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he commenced discussions with the Staff Side of the administrative Whitley Council on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates concerning Her Majesty's dockyards.

The interest of the Admiralty Whitley Council in the recommendations of the Select Committee was discussed in a preliminary way in December, 1951. There has been some correspondence since that date in which the Staff Side have given an indication of their views. A meeting took place yesterday which discussed some of the recommendations which interest the Whitley Council a further meeting to deal with the remainder is being arranged soon.

Is not this a very extraordinary reply in view of the fact that the Civil Lord on 16th July informed me that one of the reasons why a reply to the recommendations could not be made was because the Admiralty had to consult the administrative staff side of the Whitley Council? Do I now understand that this consultation only took place for the first time on an organised basis yesterday?

If the hon. Member will look at my reply again he will see that the matter was raised first of all last December.

Was the meeting arranged yesterday because my hon. Friend put down a Question for today?

No, that was not so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will increase the proportion of disabled persons employed in the Royal Dockyards.

The proportion of disabled persons employed in the Royal Dockyards is substantially greater than the standard percentage laid down by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. I regret that I can give no undertaking to increase this proportion, as so much of the work in the Royal Dockyards is unsuited to disabled persons.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people who are lame or otherwise injured make very good clerks and writers, and that there are a lot of these people living near the dockyards and ports?

We shall certainly bear this in mind.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty for how long it is intended to restrict naval officers from resigning from the Service.

The standing rule which has been in force for many years is that, subject to special consideration when compassionate grounds are advanced, no officer of the Royal Navy is allowed to retire voluntarily, or resign, if Service requirements would thereby be prejudiced. Since 1950, it has been necessary to interpret this rule strictly, although all applications on compassionate grounds are most carefully considered. I regret that I cannot at present foresee when some relaxation will become possible.

Can we take it that the Admiralty will not retain this restriction a day longer than is essential?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I think he will realise that while we are retaining many officers beyond the terms of their engagement, any concession we should make should be made to them first while others receive most careful consideration.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman watch carefully the question of naval medical officers, surgeons and other people who go in as young men who have just graduated from the medical colleges, since if they are kept in the Navy for a long time it is almost impossible for them to resume their place in civil life? They are in a quite special category.

Yes, I will see that that is given careful consideration.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the rigid enforcement of this restriction is bound to have a discouraging effect on people going forward for commissions, and is also bound to have an adverse effect on promotion?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to remove the obstructions to navigation extending between Hamstead Ledge and the Solent Banks.

I hope that the work which has caused this obstruction to minor vessels will be completed by 31st October or very soon thereafter, when the warning notices will be withdrawn.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements he provides for the training of naval helicopter pilots

All naval helicopter pilot training is carried out, at present, at the Royal Naval Air Station, Gosport. Courses last 12 weeks and each pilot does approximately 75 hours flying, which includes practice in landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier.

In view of the obviously increasing importance, and recognition of the importance, of helicopters for naval warfare, is my hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the establishment for training these pilots, who will no doubt be required in great numbers, is adequate?

Yes, I think that the present training arrangements are adequate for our present requirements. I remember my hon. Friend raising this matter on the Navy Estimates when he asked whether the R.N.V.R. could be considered in this matter, and I can assure him that we have taken fully into consideration the potentialities of that Reserve.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General his plans with regard to a special issue of stamps for the Coronation.

Designs for a special issue of Coronation stamps are now being examined. A double-sized stamp in the 2½d. denomination will certainly be issued, but I am sorry my noble Friend cannot for the moment make any further announcement.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the first stamps bearing the head of Her Majesty the Queen will be available.

I hope that the new 2½d. stamp in the permanent series will be on sale by the end of the year and that the 1½d. stamp will be issued at or about the same time.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the latest time for posting letters at the South Western District Post Office if they are to be delivered in the London area by the first post next morning; and what was the corresponding posting time in 1939.

Letters and postcards, but not correspondence at the printed paper rate, for first delivery throughout London can be posted at the South Western District Post Office up to 9.30 p.m. on weekdays and up to 6 p.m. on Sundays: in 1939 the latest posting time for first delivery was 12.30 a.m.

Could my hon. Friend say why the postal delivery is the only industry in Britain which is less efficient than it was 50 years ago?

If we were to revert to the pre-war practice it would mean either increasing the staff by some several thousand men or else reverting to a practice where postmen worked a 16-hour broken tour of duty, which I think would be unacceptable in all quarters of the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a notice at the South West District Office which says that if persons post there up to 6.30 a.m. letters will be delivered in S.W.1 the same day? Is that incorrect?

That is not what my hon. Friend asked. He asked what time at night letters should be posted for delivery next morning.

Then the answer as to letters for S.W.1 should have been midnight.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the difficulty experienced by visitors in finding post offices in this country and if he will consider making and issuing to every post office a projecting sign of symbolic character and easily recognisable design.

No general complaints have been received by the Post Office on this matter, but my hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that over half the Crown Post Offices are already provided with illuminated projecting signs, and half of the remainder are to be equipped. My noble Friend is reluctant to go further than this because of the cost involved, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind, I should be only too happy to look into it.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the heavy cost of postage on letters up to 2 oz. and the burden which this charge imposes upon the community, he will consider relaxing the Post Office monopoly on the carriage of letters, either by granting licences to appropriate agents to convey letters on a commercial basis or by permitting members of the public to make co-operative arrangements for the conveyance of letters, at least until such time as he is able to restore the 1d. post.

No, Sir. My noble Friend is not prepared to alter the 300 years old principle of monopoly in the carriage of letters. That principle is accepted in practically every country throughout the civilised world, and on it rests the present system of uniform rates of postage for inland letters irrespective of distance.

My hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that our charge for a 2 oz. letter is amongst the lowest in the world. With regard to the 1d. post, I would be misleading him if I led him to suppose that there is hope of its restoration; after all, there are not many services in this country which would like to be asked to put their charges back to what they were at the time of the First World War.

Is the Minister aware that the Question was prompted by certain rumours that there might be an increase in the level of postage, and that his answer will give a considerable measure of reassurance?

May we be allowed to congratulate the Minister of his preference for nationalisation?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increase which has taken place in the cost of providing the postal and telegraph services, arrangements will now be made for all Government Departments to pay for these services at the same rates as are charged to business subscribers.

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. The Post Office receives a credit in its commercial accounts for all services provided for Government Departments, the postal services being credited at cost and telephone and telegraph services at the same rates as those charged to the general public.

As my noble Friend announced on 26th June last in another place, as from 1st April next, certain Departments—the Ministry of Defence, the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury—will pay for telephone and telegraph services in cash, but whether Departments pay cash or not does not, in fact, affect the commercial accounts which the Post Office presents to Parliament.

Would it not be a very good thing if practically all Government offices were self-accounting in these two respects?

This experiment has been tried in the Departments I mentioned, which in fact cover three-quarters of the telephone and telegraph services which Government Departments receive from the Post Office.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total amount of losses sustained through mail bag robberies during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement regarding the more recent robberies.

The estimated loss of currency involved in mail bag thefts during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952, is about £290,000, which includes the loss of about £240,000 in the mail van robbery in Central London on 21st May, last.

As regards the second part of the Question, I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the statement made by my noble Friend yesterday in another place.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the public are gravely disturbed by the lack of success of his Department in dealing with this matter, and can he assure us that he is taking the necessary steps to see that notes returned for cancellation or destruction are cancelled and rendered useless before they leave the banks? If he has any difficulty in devising a simple method of doing this, would he consult the Railway Executive who cancel tickets and render them useless?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for law and order and for the apprehension of criminals does not rest upon the Post Office but upon the Police. With regard to the second point, only a comparatively small part of the currency which is sent through the Post Office is due for cancellation, and therefore I think the hon. Member will agree that his suggestion does not apply.

Is there any significance in the reply which the hon. Gentleman has given in the sense that he has only given the amount of currency. The Question asks for the total loss, and not only the loss of currency.

There is no significance except that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Post Office does not keep returns of the amount of losses claimed but only those losses for which they pay compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to know what those figures are I should be delighted to give them to him.

Would it be correct to say that the £240,000 that was lost consisted of notes sent for cancellation? If that is so, how does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that is only a small proportion?

Only a percentage of those notes were sent for cancellation.

Dealing with the first part of the Question, can the Minister say what proportion of these losses take place when the bags are outside the direct control of the Post Office?

When mail bags are lost on the railways they are the responsibility of the railways.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on the ambush of the Post Office mail van near Oxford Street in May last; and if internal Departmental inquiries are now complete.

I regret I have no further information to give the House about the mail van robbery in Central London on 21st May last. On the question of mail robberies generally, I cannot usefully add to what was said yesterday by my noble Friend in another place.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time the House was informed in more detail of the result of the Departmental inquiry, particularly in regard to the fact that the mail which was stolen could have been transferred on the Post Office underground railway; that there was a deliberate routeing of the vehicle near Oxford Street, and that the vehicle had been deliberately changed?

With regard to the last two points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I dealt with those when he raised the matter in the House earlier this year. I am sure he would not ask me to give the House any details of the additional precautions that have been and still will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing.

Does not the hon. Gentleman really think that with regard to an inquiry which has taken place in the Post Office the House is entitled to know what action has been taken with regard to the points I have raised, particularly with regard to the routeing of the vehicle?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the most stringent inquiry has taken place, and I can equally assure him that it would be most undesirable if most of the results of that inquiry were made public.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether all thefts of mail in transit are reported to the police immediately the loss is discovered.

As soon as the Investigation Branch of the Post Office is reasonably satisfied that a theft of mails in transit has been committed, the police are at once informed.

Does not the value of this semi-immediate notification to the police become considerably minimised when, despite the requests of the police, the news of the theft is not released to the public, as happened in the case of the £14,000 Doncaster mail robbery?

I do not think that any responsible police officer would agree with that statement.

It is not a fact that the news of the £14,000 robbery which took place between Doncaster and Barnsley was not released to the public until three days after the robbery had taken place?

There was a delay in releasing the news to the public; but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that was deliberate.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what economies are in prospect in his Department to offset the rising cost of postal services, and to enable the inland postal charge to be pegged at 2½d.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend is very much alive to the need for every possible internal economy, both by increased mechanisation and by a more economical use of manpower in order to offset rising costs, but I would be misleading the House if I gave any impression that further substantial economies are possible without depriving the public of some important service which they have hitherto enjoyed. In spite of a steady rise every year in postal and telephone traffic, the Post Office has not increased its non-industrial staff during the past three years, and of the increase in costs of about £50 million in the past two years, only a half has been passed on to the public.

Can the hon. Gentleman now give an assurance that the statement he made recently about the possibility of the letter post being the first casualty need not now be taken too seriously?

If the hon. Gentleman chooses to find out what I did say, he will see that it was that if costs in the Post Office continued to rise their charges would rise. I should have thought that that was a platitude.

Will my hon. Friend consider most seriously, if he has to pass on increased charges, whether he could not allow a special low rate of perhaps 2d. a letter for people who are, perhaps, suffering financial hardship and who could post early in the day and thus save themselves money and spread the postal load throughout the day?

I do not want to give my hon. Friend any impression that increased costs are in any way inevitable. Today this country has practically the lowest postal and telephone charges in the world, and Her Majesty's Government are determined to do all in their power to see that that state of affairs continues.

Would the hon. Gentleman refuse to countenance a means test?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to announce the names of the Television Advisory Committee.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he will announce the appointment of the members of the new Television Advisory Committee; and why it has taken nearly four months to act in this matter.

It has necessarily taken time to reconstitute the Television Advisory Committee, but my noble Friend expects to make an announcement very shortly.

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General take the necessary steps to ensure that there are no fellow-travellers on this advisory committee and that they are all loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider altering the terms of reference of the Television Advisory Committee in view of the report of the Copyright Committee?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question I shall certainly give him an answer.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones on the Brixton telephone exchange are outstanding, as compared with a year ago.

One thousand, five hundred and sixty-six on 30th September, 1952, and 1,281 on 30th September, 1951.

Mr. Hobson.

rose—

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not quite quick enough in rising.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that, in view of the decision that if aircraft remain on the ground for more than four hours the full landing fee must be paid in addition to that entailed for parking, some civil aviators take off in adverse weather conditions in order to avoid the full landing fee which would be imposed for a long wait; and whether, in view of the danger incurred by this practice, he will reconsider his decision.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the concession under which aircraft landing solely for Customs, health and immigration clearance are exempt from landing fees. Any such aircraft which remains on the ground for more than six hours after Customs, health and immigration formalities have been completed is liable to the normal landing fee. Our experience has shown that this period is a reasonable one; I have no evidence that this practice is dangerous.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will institute an inquiry to consider whether it is essential and economical in land and money to plan future civil airports with, three runways; and, in particular, the requirement that each runway must be 7,000 feet long and have a uniform width of 200 feet throughout its length.

The number of runway directions planned for a new civil aerodrome is governed by the local wind distribution and by the maximum crosswind acceptable by the types of aircraft for which the aerodrome is planned. No runway is constructed unless these conditions make it essential. The dimensions quoted by my hon. Friend refer only to the main runway direction on an aerodrome planned for use by large civil aircraft.

Whilst appreciating that this is a matter for international agreement, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is not time to ask aircraft designers to make adjustments to the design of aircraft so that they do not need increasingly long runways of enormous width? This is a cost factor which is beginning to play a very great part in civil aviation, and all countries cannot afford to have runways which take up 30 acres of land and which cost very large sums of money.

It is a fact that both manufacturers and operators of aircraft are inclined to require additional runways for the take-off and landing of their machines. This is a matter which has given concern to Her Majesty's Government, and we are doing what we cart to influence both manufacturers and operators in the direction of lessening their runway requirements.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the estimated capital cost of developing Gatwick Airport according to the plans his Ministry has recently published.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the estimated costs of the proposed development of Gatwick Airport.

The cost of the first stage of development as proposed in the published plans, copies of which are in the Library, is estimated to be £6 million spread over the next seven years. The total cost of the second stage of development cannot yet be forecast. It will in any case be started only if traffic justifies it and certainly not before 1958.

Can my hon. Friend say whether that includes the cost of diverting the Brighton Road?

That includes the contribution of the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the cost of diverting the Brighton Road, which I understand is the major part of the cost.

Could not the Minister find out from the Minister of Transport the cost of diverting the Brighton Road?

The hon. Gentleman can also find out by putting down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Does my hon. Friend remember that the original estimates for London Airport were proved in practice to be hopelessly inadequate, and has he borne that experience in mind when considering the estimates for the first stage of Gatwick Airport?

I do not think my right hon. Friend was in any way responsible for the original estimates for the development of London Airport, but certainly the experience of London Airport has been very closely borne in mind in framing the estimates for the development of Gatwick.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform us whether the statement he has now made covers the aerodrome requirements of B.E.A. if they are also required to vacate Northolt?

I think that is a different question, which I should like to deal with later.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the many objections raised against the proposed development of Gatwick Airport both on national and local grounds, he will hold a public inquiry into the desirability of this project.

No, Sir. The Government's proposals for the extension of Gatwick Aerodrome were explained to representatives of the planning and other local authorities concerned, and of the Crawley Development Corporation, at a meeting on 6th October. The authorities are now considering these proposals, and they have agreed to let my Department have their views by 20th December.

Have not these authorities asked for a public inquiry?

I think it would be better to await the considered views which these authorities have undertaken to let my Department have in due course.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a widespread feeling that this development may be a costly blunder and that all that anxiety would be allayed if there were a proper and impartial public inquiry?

There is no doubt that this development will be costly. All aerodromes are of their nature costly. But that does not say that it is a blunder. What I have said is that the authorities concerned are considering seriously and in detail the proposals made and have undertaken to let us have their views by 20th December; and in the circumstances I think it is better that we should await their views.

If they ask for an inquiry, will they get it?

As I have said, it seems advisable to await the receipt of their views.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what advice he received from the British European Airways Corporation on the suitability of Gatwick Airport for large scale expansion; and if he will state the reason for the present change in policy.

The British European Airways Corporation have stated that Gatwick Airport would be suitable to them for development as an alternate for London Airport. There has been no change of policy as far as the present Government is concerned.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that about four years ago this Corporation made inquiries into this matter and decided that Gatwick was not suitable for large-scale development? Could he say what has happened to make the Corporation change their mind, because the only change in the situation has been the development of the new town at Crawley?

I can speak only for the advice received by the present Government from British European Airways, which is that Gatwick Airport would be suitable for their purpose; and I understand that they have been expressing this point of view for at least the past three years.

Could my hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to start on this job before some money has been provided in the Estimates?

If my hon. Friend will study the Estimates he will find that provision has been made.

Could my hon. Friend tell me what will be the loss of good agricultural land involved in the development of these enormous runways?

The amount of land involved is some 700 acres, which I am told is not of the first agricultural quality. I should also like to point out that land between the runways will be cultivated, as it is cultivated on existing civil aerodromes.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what advice he has given to gliding clubs on the age-limit below which schoolboys should be ineligible for membership.

I am considering this matter in the light of a recent accident of which the hon. and gallant Member is aware and will communicate with him.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that it is most deplorable and repugnant that in civil gliding clubs schoolboys of 14 years of age or less should be encouraged to take up gliding whereas the Air Ministry, for very good reasons, do not allow members of the A.T.C. to undertake it under the age of 16?

That is a point of view which will certainly be taken into account, although I could not accept it without also taking into account points of view which other people put forward.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take to enforce the use in this country of the new international phonetic alphabet for aviation purposes which has been rejected by the British Air Line Pilots Association and by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations.

None, Sir, but it is much to be hoped that airlines and aircrew will collaborate in giving a thorough trial to this internationally agreed phonetic alphabet, without which it is impossible to reach a firm conclusion on its merits.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that he has accepted this scheme but that he does not intend to enforce it? As the men themselves say they are not going to use it, would not the best thing be to take away this silly alphabet and have its phonetic throat cut?

I am advised that this alphabet is not legally enforceable in any case, but I suggest that it contains possibilities of substantial advantage on international air routes, and I would ask all those who are concerned with the development of civil aviation to encourage pilots and air lines at least to give it a trial. Until it has been given a trial it is difficult to be certain about its merits.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what period of trial he considers to be a fair one?

I think that is a question of which I should like notice.

asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he has yet any statement to make about the future ownership and control of air services in Scotland.

No, Sir.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying that he is leaving the management and the men of this Corporation in continued uncertainty about the future of their livelihood?

It could, on the other hand, be argued that the possibility of some other operator providing an equally good service at a cheaper cost might spur them on to even greater efforts.

Could the Minister tell us what has been the outcome of the discussions which the Minister of Transport had with private flying interests around Prestwick and elsewhere during the Recess?

As I have said, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a further statement at present.

Does the Minister mean by his last statement that he intends to leave this threat over the heads of the Corporation indefinitely?

I merely said, in answer to a Question, that my right hon. Friend has as yet no statement to make about the future ownership of these air services.

Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to be careful when he gets offers from private individuals for enterprises in this connection? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make careful inquiries into their antecedents, because a good many people are making spurious claims to be able to do things?

My right hon. Friend has made it clear on more than one occasion that he will make no change in this matter until he is entirely satisfied that such a change would be in the public interest.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that every opportunity is given for the transfer of this very out-of-date State enterprise to modern up-to-date private enterprise?

My right hon. Friend will take very good care that any opportunities of serving the public interest in general will be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement of the action he now proposes to take in regard to the judgment against Albania in the Corfu Channel case; and whether the arbitrator appointed by the International Court to advise on certain claims to gold looted by the Germans from Rome in 1943 has yet reported.

I am now awaiting the decision in the arbitration, the arrangements for which were published in White Paper Command 8242. The oral hearings took place in September and it is hoped that the arbitrator will furnish his opinion within the next few weeks.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that just before we rose for the Recess the Minister of State said we were expecting the decision of the arbitrator in August or September? Now we are told that the meeting did not take place until September and that we have still several weeks to wait. Has the right hon. Gentleman convinced the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this delay is unavoidable, in view of the attitude which the hon. Gentleman previously took on this matter?

I said only that the hearings took place in September. We did not appoint the arbitrator. It was the late Government who appointed the arbitrator, and I do not think we are to blame if he takes a little longer than I should wish. Personally, I would give him a little more time—if he makes the right answer. [Laughter.] But, perhaps, I ought not to say that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Korean truce talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the Korean truce negotiations; and what are the outstanding difficulties on reaching a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions the Government have recently engaged in to speed up an armistice in Korea; and what proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government towards that end.

Since the Under-Secretary's statement on 30th July the United Nations Command have made continued efforts to reach an armistice agreement. After consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, Commonwealth and other Governments concerned, the United Nations Command put forward on 28th September three new proposals for a solution of the prisoners-of-war difficulty. These have been fully reported in the Press, and I need only mention briefly the main point in each.

Under the first proposal, both sides would agree that the obligation to exchange and repatriate prisoners-of-war would be fulfilled by each side delivering all prisoners held to an agreed place in the demilitarised zone. Individual prisoners would have the right to return to the side on which they were detained, if they so wished.

Under the second proposal, all prisoners willing to be repatriated would be exchanged at once and the remainder would be sent in small groups to the demilitarised zone. There they would be freed from military control and after being interviewed by mutually agreed neutral representatives would be free to go to the side of their choice.

Under the third proposal, on being released in the neutral zone, the men would be free to go north or south without any interviewing or screening of any kind, by neutral or other representatives.

The United Nations proposed in addition that any one of these three procedures could, if desired, be supervised by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or by joint Red Cross teams, or by military observers from both sides.

I think the House will agree that we have here a fair and generous offer, which the Communists could accept with dignity and confidence.

After a 10-day recess proposed by the United Nations Command to allow time for full consideration, the Communists on 8th October rejected the United Nations Command's proposals and went on to state once again their insistence on the principle of total repatriation of prisoners-of-war on both sides. The United Nations Command, therefore, proposed a recess of the plenary meetings. Liaison officers remain in contact, and plenary meetings can be renewed at once if the other side wishes to discuss our proposals further or has any new proposals of its own to offer. The armistice negotiations thus stand suspended; but they have not been broken off.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that, in the event of the Communists maintaining their silence, alternative proposals will be sought after by our own Government? Can we be further assured that our own Government will not lag behind the United States of America, waiting for them to move to put alternative proposals before the truce negotiators?

It would be quite unjust to suggest—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to make the imputation—that the Government have lagged behind anybody in this business. We discussed these proposals with the United States Government at considerable length before they were put forward. They are joint United Nations Command proposals. I really think they are as clear and reasonable proposals as the human mind can devise, and I hope they will be accepted.

Has not the programme unfortunately got beyond the stage of the prisoners-of-war problem, and are there not political implications involving recognition of the Peking Government? Is it the view of our Government that once a Korean armistice has been achieved, we shall recognise the Peking Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that the political implications of this situation, as far as the United States discussions are concerned, in relation to this country and the countries of Western Europe and America, are being properly represented and heard?

I really do not think that recognition of the Peking Government has arisen in these discussions. In point of fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we do recognise the Peking Government. The difficulty is that they do not recognise us very much.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain particulars from the United Nations' Command and make a statement on the circumstances in which a large number of Chinese or North Korean prisoners-of-war were killed in recent incidents in United Nations' prison camps; what steps have been taken in recent months generally to improve discipline and administration in these camps; how far British troops are now taking part in prison guard duties; and in which camps.

One prisoner-of-war was killed when United States troops were forced to restore order in Enclosure No. 10 at Koje on 23rd August last. On 1st October a more serious incident occurred in Compound No. 7 of United Nations' Command prisoner-of-war Camp No. 3A on Cheju Island. I understand that the prisoners in this compound have all elected to be repatriated.

The incident began when Chinese prisoners staged a prepared demonstration. The prisoners refused to obey the Camp Commander's order, given by loudspeaker, that, if the demonstration were not stopped, force would have to be used. When two platoons of United States infantry entered the compound to restore order, the prisoners attacked them with stones and improvised weapons. Order was quickly restored, but not before 56 prisoners had been killed and 91 injured, and 11 of the American guards injured. Only American troops were involved in the incident.

Major-General T. W. Herren, Commanding-General, Korean Communications Zone, and an investigating body of officers were at once flown to the island to make an investigation. Their report is not yet available.

In recent months the United Nations' Command have re-organised prisoners-of-war into smaller compounds. Discipline generally throughout the camps has been improved.

British troops have not been taking part in prison guard duties in any prisoner-of-war camp in Korea since 10th July.

Is it not the case that discipline was good under Brigadier-General Boatner, who always allowed prisoners to celebrate their own national festivals, and so on, but that he was replaced by an inexperienced commander who gave the order that this day should not be celebrated; and is not the killing of 56 prisoners in a quarter of an hour a rather disproportionate use of force in retaliation for an attack by stone-throwing?

I think it is very difficult for this House to judge a matter of this kind, or what happened when the guards entered the camp, or what the state of the opposition was. An inquiry has been called for by the Americans concerned, and I think in fairness to our ally, we ought at least to await the outcome of the report, and not suppose that they must inevitably be in the wrong.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 1st October, the day on which the prisoners wished to demonstrate, was the Chinese national day; and does he know of anything in international law which would have justified the Nazis during the late war in shooting down prisoners who wanted to sing "God Save The King" on Empire Day?

The hon. Gentleman's parallel is an ingenious one, but I really think that until we have the report we are not in a position to judge precisely what happened. Had there been British troops concerned in this our position to demand a report would, of course, have been immediate and strong, but as things now are I think that we should await the report and not pass judgment on hearsay.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the Permanent Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Since its reorganisation, of which I gave the House an account on 28th February, the North Atlantic Council has made satisfactory progress in co-ordinating the joint efforts of the member countries in the defence, economic and political fields. Served by the new international secretariat, the Permanent Representatives, under the Chairmanship of Lord Ismay, the new Secretary-General, have held regular sessions about twice a week.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very full reply, may I ask him if he will continue to do his utmost to see that both the House and the public are kept informed of the work of this very important body, of which there is all too little knowledge in this country?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position of Her Majesty's representative in Peking, with particular regard to the number of interviews he has had with the head of the Chinese People's Government and the Chinese Foreign Minister.

Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires is accepted in that capacity by the Chinese Government and, to quote their words, as "the British Government's negotiating representative." He has had interviews with the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs but not with the head of the Chinese Government or the Chinese Foreign Minister.

May I ask my right hon. Friend for his assurance that until Her Majesty's representative is given full and proper recognition by the People's Government in China, and until that Government end their war of aggression in Korea, Her Majesty's Government will not in any way support the application of that Government for representation on the Security Council of the United Nations?

I think that does go rather wide of the Question, and I should like notice of it.

Repeat it on Monday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British property in China has been confiscated by the Communist authorities.

The present Chinese Government requisitioned certain property, equipment and buildings, belonging to two British firms, at Hankow, Chungking, and other ports in late 1950 and early 1951. In April, 1951, they requisitioned all the property of the Shell Company in China, with the exception of some office accommodation. In August, 1952, they requisitioned two British dockyards at Shanghai. Among other property taken over by the Chinese authorities is land belonging to the Shanghai and Tient-sin Race Course Companies and some privately-owned houses and building land.

Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has formally reserved all British rights and asked that compensation or rental shall be paid, except where the owners of the property did not wish this action to be taken.

No compensation has yet been paid, nor has any reply been sent to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires' notes.

What approximately is the value of all this property, which seems to be confiscated as no rent or compensation of any kind has been paid?

I am afraid I do not know off-hand. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind putting a Question down I will give him a figure. I should not like to make a guess

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the decision was taken in principle to give Herr Krupp financial compensation for his industrial property; when the decision in principle was communicated by the American authorities to the British Government; and what communication was then made by the British Government to the American authorities on the subject.

I would ask the hon. Baronet to await a statement which I propose to make after Questions.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the case of Herr Alfried Krupp in reply to Question No. 37.

Alfried Krupp is the son of Gustav Krupp, who was arraigned as a major war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, but found unfit to plead. He succeeded his father as head of Krupps at the end of 1943.

Alfried Krupp, together with a number of other industrialists in the British Zone, was handed over towards the end of 1946 by the authority of the late Government to the United States authorities for trial in the American Zone War Crimes Court. He was tried and convicted in 1948 of having employed slave labour and of having plundered occupied territories. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and to confiscation of all his property. On the other hand, he was acquitted on charges of crimes against peace, and conspiracy.

In January, 1951, the American High Commissioner reviewed the sentence imposed by this American court. He decided to reduce Krupp's prison sentence to the six years already served and to revoke the confiscation of his property. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement on 12th February, 1951, the review of Krupp's sentence was entirely a matter for the American High Commissioner, who was under no obligation to consult His Majesty's Government.

In reviewing Krupp's sentence, the American High Commissioner found that this was the only case in which a war criminal had been sentenced to forfeiture of property—this was not done even in the case of Goering and Ribbentrop. He felt that confiscation in this instance was not justified by any special considerations attaching to Krupps.

Under an Allied High Commission Law of May, 1950, approved by His late Majesty's Government, the French Government and the United States Government, the whole German coal and steel industry was to be reorganised so as to break up excessive concentrations of economic power.

Under that Law, the Krupp coal and steel complex is being broken up into independent units; and an Order is to be issued under which Krupp will be compelled to sell his securities in the coal and steel companies. No provision was made under that Law by which Krupp's holdings in these companies could be confiscated either in whole or in part.

On the contrary, in view of the decision to revoke the confiscation of Krupp's property, the effect of this Law was to provide him with compensation for all his holdings. No reliable estimate can yet be formed of the amount which the sale of Krupp's securities will realise but it will run into many millions. Needless to say this money will be drawn entirely from German sources.

So much for the past. As to the future, we are seeking to ensure that Herr Krupp shall not be allowed to use the proceeds of the sale of his holdings to buy his way back into the coal and steel industries or otherwise to acquire a controlling interest. The means of achieving this end are under discussion in Germany between the High Commission and the Federal Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the restoration of this vast sum of money to this family, whose activities were of such assistance to Hitler and all his evil associates, has deeply shocked people everywhere? May I further ask him whether, in as much as this man was found guilty of using slave labour and of taking other people's property, it is not possible to divert some of this wealth to those people who have suffered, and, thirdly, in as much as the Peace Treaty has not yet been discussed, whether the activities of people such as this cannot be considered in connection with that Peace Treaty?

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that these decisions are not decisions recently taken. Herr Krupp was handed over by His late Majesty's Government in 1946—as long ago as that—for trial by the American authorities. They carried out the trial and they carried out the sentence, and they then reviewed the sentence as they are entirely entitled to do, and as each one of us is entitled to do in our respective zones. After that, by a law also passed under the late Government, compensation has to be paid where these expropriations are made. It does not lie within my power, in any circumstances, to say that this compensation is not to be paid now at this stage after all these laws have been passed which are actively taking effect. It is not remotely within my power.

Although this decision is clearly one taken by the American authorities, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that, now that it is seen how it works out, we ought, in some way, to express our view that the restoration of so large a sum, to a man who has made it entirely out of war activities, must be an enormous discouragement to innumerable people who are being called upon to work and sacrifice, in order to safeguard us against another onslaught by totalitarians?

I think that the hon. Baronet has misunderstood. This compensation has been paid under the Allied High Commission law of May, 1950, passed as long ago as that, in the late Government's term of office. I have no power now suddenly to say that we are going to revoke the law passed at that time by all the Allies together.

In the second place, so far as the action of remitting the sentence is concerned, that was taken in January, 1951. The Prime Minister at that time, now the present Leader of the Opposition, said, absolutely rightly in my opinion, that he had no power, once the Americans had taken that decision. They were in their right to do it. Why we handed over Herr Krupp to the Americans to try is another matter. No doubt, at the time, we had good reasons; I do not know. The point is that this Allied arrangement was made long before this Government took office and no power rests with me, under the present law, suddenly to revoke something which has been carried on for all this long time.

Is it not abundantly clear that full responsibility for all this rests fairly and squarely on the last Government?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has said himself that His late Majesty's Government were not consulted about the events that took place, and the Americans were under no obligation to do so. Secondly, does he not think that while it is quite true that we cannot reverse the processes in the American zone, nevertheless, this case, which has shocked the whole of opinion in this country and in Europe, underlines the importance of taking whatever steps are possible to prevent the control of the Ruhr industries getting back into the sort of hands they once were in?

I am in agreement with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and that is exactly what I am trying to do. In view of what has happened up-to-date, I do not want to make promises unless I am sure they can be carried out. [Interruption.] No, because when hon. Members opposite were in Government they allowed all this to develop and then their supporters attacked us for it in the public Press. I am very anxious, but I am not prepared to give all sorts of guarantees unless I am sure. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that our purpose is to carry out the last part of his supplementary question. I have only explained what has happened in the past because of attacks made upon us, without any justification, for actions taken by the late Government.

Does it not still lie within the province of the German Government, if they want to, to nationalise the coal and steel undertakings?

Certainly it lies within their power to do that, and, of course, it equally lies in their power to levy taxes. That is entirely for them. Equally, there is the question of pensions, which, I understand, Herr Krupp is called upon to meet to the extent of nearly £1 million a year. All that is for the Germans. What I am trying to explain to the House is what our remaining powers are as a result of what has happened.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we are not blaming him or the previous Government? I am anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will see if something can be done, either now or in the Peace Treaty, to deal with this matter. It is not a question of awarding blame but of whether something can actually be done.

I am not trying to award blame. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member has only to read the attacks made by Members of his own party over this business in the last few months. We have been attacked consistently by some of the Left Wing Press for something we have not done. Actually the whole of this arises from something done by the late Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—yes—and I think much of it was inevitable because, once Krupp was handed over for the Americans to deal with, there was no way out of the situation. If they are not to blame, neither are we in this matter.

All I can say is that, so far as I can judge from the powers now remaining, I do not think there is any action we can take except on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). Those are the lines on which we are now working—to see that this situation does not arise again.

On a point of order. I have risen several times to put a supplementary question. A direct charge was made about what happened under my administration in this particular case Am I not entitled to reply to it?

I will bear that in mind, but we cannot debate this very much longer.

Is not the trouble here that we did not put Herr Krupp on trial because we were advised that the criminal charges against him were purely bogus, that the Americans have now come to the same conclusion and that now, therefore, it is not very easy to treat him differently from anybody else?

I really do not know why we did not put him on trial but handed him over to the Americans. I do not know.

In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly tried to suggest—I do not suggest this unfairly—that this is something that has been done under the Allied Control law when the previous Government were in office—I am sure he does not wish to mislead the House—will he not find out and tell the House that that law did not make any provision for payment of compensation to Herr Krupp and that the compensation provided for in that law was only in cases where anyone charged with a war crime had been released? That has been done in the American Zone since. There is no provision in that law for compensation for war criminals.

I am advised that once Herr Krupp was exculpated, as he was by the American action, of course compensation fell due to him as to anyone else—[Interruption.]

We cannot debate the matter further. I will call Mr. Eric Fletcher.

rose—

He would be bought out like anyone else.

Is it not a fact that the reason why the American High Commissioner did not confirm the sentence of confiscation was that if he had confirmed it we should never have been able to keep the Krupp assets but would have had to divide them with Soviet Russia?

I have not seen that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the fate of Dr. Walter Linse, the West German lawyer, who was kidnapped in Berlin in July, 1952, and taken to the East German Soviet zone.

I regret that there is no information available as to the fate of Dr. Linse.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in Egypt as regards British interests affected.

Since General Neguib became Prime Minister he has had a number of meetings with Her Majesty's Ambassador on matters affecting British interests. These discussions are still continuing, but I should prefer to make no statement at the present time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement on the subject during the present Session? Would it pin him down too tightly to say that?