asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty has been represented in Guatemala by a Chargé d'Affaires during the present emergency; and what steps he has taken to secure representation by a fully-accredited Minister.

Mr. W. H. Gallienne, who had been Minister at Guatemala City since 1947, left on 17th March to take up his appointment as Ambassador to Cuba. His successor, Mr. R. H. S. Allen, left the United Kingdom on 29th May, but owing to the disruption of communications, he was not able to reach his post until 2nd July.

Does not that answer, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to the previous Question, show that Her Majesty's Government were grievously lacking in information about all the affairs that took place in Guatemala at this time? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to publish as a White Paper the full information that he obtained either from the Guatemalan Government or from such representatives as he may have had in Guatemala during that period?

I should like to repudiate straight away any suggestion that Her Majesty's Government were not appropriately represented during this period. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was a very experienced and able officer, and I am perfectly certain that he represented us in the best possible manner.

Had the Government no information of what was brewing in Honduras?

There are later Questions with regard to that matter. There was a public communication, I think in January of this year, by the Guatemalan Government.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think it is a good thing that there should be an interval when a new Minister is appointed so that more junior members of the Diplomatic Service may have an opportunity to prove their worth?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the abstention of the representative of Her Majesty's Government on the Security Council with regard to the matter of the invasion of Guatemala, he will now instruct Her Majesty's representative that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that any country has the right to appeal to the Security Council under Article 35, even though that country is a member of a regional arrangement.

The abstention recorded in the Security Council on 25th June by the United Kingdom representative in connection with the Guatemalan question in no way indicated that Her Majesty's Government consider that membership of a regional arrangement impairs the right of appeal to the Security Council under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter.

The reasons for the abstention in question were explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) on 30th June.

If the Minister is now accepting what we have said on this side, that Guatemala had every right to bring her case before the Security Council, does he not think that it was most unfortunate that we appeared to equivocate at the important time?

I do not agree. There is the right referred to, under Article 35 of the Charter, to bring a matter to the attention of the Security Council. That was done.

Does not Article 39 also impose an absolute duty on the Security Council to determine whether or not there has been an aggression?

It certainly leaves it quite open to the Security Council to decide by what method it shall come to a conclusion on that point.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Press reports, to the effect that the total invading force consisted of one colonel, 38 other ranks and one radio transmitter, are true or not? Are not they less numerous than the whole Security Council put together?

I think it is quite clear that the whole business has been grossly exaggerated.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it is necessary to determine by what method an aggression took place, and can he answer my previous question, which was whether he will publish the information which he obtained from this naval attaché in charge during the period?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little muddled. There was no naval attaché in charge during the period, but there are later Questions on the Order Paper about the publication of a White Paper, with which I am going to deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the discussions in the United Nations Security Council on the events in Guatemala, similar to the one that was issued on events which led to the United Nations action in Korea.

Yes, Sir. I am arranging for this to be done.

Will it not be forever to our shame that when this small country came to the United Nations Security Council with its complaint we did not act with the speed which the United Nations Charter requires, but shared in the equivocation and delays suggested by the United States, so that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter may be, we shall be forever on record as being prepared to act quickly when Communists undertake aggression but not when it is suggested that others may have?

That is, of course, a wholly misconceived comment. What happened was that on 20th June a suggestion was made for immediate action by a body already in existence to find the facts, namely, the Organisation of American States, and it was a Russian veto on 20th June that caused the delay.

In view of the aspersions that have been cast upon a religious institution known as the United Fruit Company will the Minister of State undertake in the White Paper to tell us something about the United Fruit Company, how much of the land it owns, whether it is a monopoly, and whether the whole affair has not been organised in the interests of monopoly to overthrow a democratically elected Government?

I have promised a White Paper on the discussions of the United Nations Security Council on the events in Guatemala.

Could my right hon. and learned Friend possibly indicate whether the treaties and international agreements of this century have done anything, in effect, to modify the Monroe doctrine of the last century?

There is a strong feeling among Latin American States that the Monroe doctrine still exists and this Organisation of American States, which includes Guatemala, is in existence. Guatemala thereby pledges herself to take these matters first of all to the Organisation of the American States.

Is the Minister aware that these events have been described by Mr. Dulles as a splendid victory against Communism, and that the Foreign Secretary has been specifically congratulated by Mr. Dulles for his success in preventing them being investigated by the United Nations? Does he not realise that a British policy which deliberately condones invasion by proxy by America and causes millions of men to die for invasion by proxy by Russia is something which brings this country into utter disrepute?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—and I believe that when this White Paper is studied, and the course of events is seen, very few people will agree with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the action of the Security Council in relation to the Guatemalan question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on further action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations regarding the invasion of Guatemala.

The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), on 28th June.

As there is little doubt that this attack on the Guatemalan Government has been launched from bases outside the country, and that the Security Council's appeal for a cease fire was ignored, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the British representative did not urge the Security Council to intervene with the same speed as it intervened in the case of the Korean aggression? If the Minister says that this incident has been exaggerated is he saying that it was only a little murder and that, therefore, we should not bother much about it?

What I say is that when the matter first came before the Security Council on 20th June action was taken, supported by Her Majesty's Government, which, I believe, would have resulted in the facts being found very quickly, but that resolution was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Then, on a later occasion, on 25th June, an attempt was made to bring the item before the Security Council again. The hon. Member does not need much imagination to see what might easily have happened, and, in the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government were perfectly right in doing what they could to urge the Organisation of American States to send out a Fact-Finding Committee. In fact, the whole thing has fizzled out,

May the House take it that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the outcome of the revolution in Guatemala will not be allowed to impede the consideration of the matter by the Security Council after it has received the report of this Fact-Finding Committee? Can we take it that the question whether or not there has been an act of aggression will not be ruled out by the fact that the revolution is over?

We have always said that the sending out of the Committee by the Organisation of American States should not exclude the matter from the Security Council. The matter would obviously have to be considered again by the Security Council in one form or another.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that his hon. Friends on this side of the House do not share the apparently unanimous regret of hon. Members opposite at the disappearance of a Communist régime hostile to this country?

May we take it from the Minister's reply that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that if an aggression succeeds quickly enough it has the full approval of the Government?

Not at all, but one has to seek to take such action as is possible in the circumstances. The simple and the best form of action was vetoed by the Soviet Union on 20th June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of how the British representative voted on each complaint of a threat to her security made by Guatemala to the United Nations organisation during the last two years; what were the dates; and what action was taken.

The only occasions in the past two years on which the Guatemalan Government have asked the Security Council to take action to put an end to threats to her security were on 19th June and 22nd June of this year. These requests were considered by the Security Council on 20th June and 25th June. The House has already been informed of the way in which the United Kingdom delegate on the Security Council voted on those two occasions and of the action taken by the Council.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the sacrifice of a vital principle of the United Nations cannot be excused by saying that the Guatemalan war is only a small war, and that a small war is much more easy to regulate and prompt action is more easily effected? Is the Minister not aware that to refer to the bombing of an open town, the invasion of a country, and the sinking of a British ship as a matter which is fizzling out is a little unusual in this House, and that we heard it with regret? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of exiles invading from without, might not a similar description be applied with equal accuracy to a war by Formosa against China?

I do not think that I referred to any of the matters as fizzling out. It appears that hostilities have terminated. They have fizzled out and, as has been suggested, the two colonels now are in comparative amity.

Can we take it from all these Questions and answers on this subject that it is now the policy of the Government that the United Nations organisation as such should only deal with aggression when the aggression arises from Communist countries?

Not at all. We wish the Security Council to operate in accordance with the terms of the Charter. On 20th June there was one veto on a certain course of action and, as I say, I do not think it requires much imagination to understand what would have happened. I am convinced that the course we took was the right one.

Will the Government insist that the Fact-Finding Committee shall give us the full facts of what occurred?

We certainly shall endeavour to find out the full facts. We have no power to insist.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, as one who was on the staff of the legation in Guatemala for some years, I feel that it is fortunate for British interests and for the interests of everybody in Central America that the disorders have ceased so quickly? Will my right hon. and learned Friend, therefore resist attempts to transfer the fighting to the Floor of this House when it can do nothing but harm to the interests of this country and of the Central American countries?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the effect on British interests of the situation in Guatemala and on the report of the Fact-Finding Commission.

As the House has already been informed, a Shell Company installation outside Guatemala City was machine-gunned and damaged, and the British vessel "Springfjord" was bombed and burnt out at the port of San José. I have received no other reports of damage to British property in Guatemala.

As far as the Fact-Finding Committee is concerned, I believe that Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala have now withdrawn their charges, but this has not yet been confirmed. The Committee returned to Washington on 3rd July from Mexico City, and an announcement may be made tomorrow.

Apart from the fact that a British ship was sunk after being bombed, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement in "The Times" today that had it not been for the fact that Colonel Armas had the services of a number of foreign aircraft the Government of Guatemala would have been able to deal with the situation very easily? Is it not essential, in view of this, that the public should know the identity of the aircraft, where they came from and where the bombs came from? In those circumstances, will the Government press for the Fact-Finding Committee to establish the facts?

Her Majesty's Government will certainly seek to find out what the facts were, but I quite agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said on the point. As far as the Committee and its movements are concerned, I think we must await its report.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend in agreement with me when I say that this was a typical Central American revolution, and, that being so, that the whole incident has been grossly exaggerated, largely, it is suspected, on account of anti-American prejudice?

I certainly think that hon. Members would be very wise not to draw a conclusion contrary to that of my hon. and gallant Friend without knowing the facts.

If it is merely a question of a Central American revolution of the musical-comedy type, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that American planes and pilots bombed and machine-gunned Guatemala?

That is a fact which we have to find out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Government he now recognises in Guatemala.

The constitutional position in Guatemala is not yet clear. No new request for recognition has been made. In the meantime, Her Majesty's representative has been instructed to deal with the authorities in Guatemala City on a de facto basis.

In view of the report in "The Times" already quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend, has the Minister any doubt that we are here dealing with a situation in which an elected Government has been overthrown by a revolutionary force vociferously encouraged and militarily sustained from outside? Is that not exactly what we complain about regarding the Communists all over China and Asia, and had we not better be very wary about recognising the outcome of this lamentable state of affairs?

I certainly agree with the hon. Baronet that we should try to ascertain more about the facts before we proceed to deal with this new Government except on a de facto basis. On the other hand, it is quite clear that what took place was a revolt by Guatemalan exiles against the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the bombing and sinking of a British ship near Guatemala.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's representatives in Honduras, Guatemala and the United States of America to conduct inquiries as to the country of origin of the Thunderbolt aircraft used by the insurgents in the recent Guatemalan civil war that made attacks upon British shipping; the country or countries which granted the export licence to enable these aircraft to be supplied to the insurgents; and the country or countries from which these aircraft took off for their incursions into Guatemala.

As I have informed the House, the British steamer "Springfjord," on charter to the United States Grace Line, was bombed and set on fire on 27th June off the port of San José, Guatemala, when she was taking on a mixed cargo. Her crew are safe. Although badly damaged, Lloyds' Agent in Guatemala reported that the ship was still afloat on 29th June.

Immediate inquiries were addressed by Her Majesty's representatives in neighbouring countries to the Governments of El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua in an endeavour to establish the facts about the attacking aircraft. These Governments all stated that they had no information. The Guatemalan Government informed Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires on 28th June that the aircraft belonged to the insurgent forces.

A claim for compensation has been presented by the owners to the Guatemalan Legation in London.

Is the Minister aware that this was an American-type aircraft and that it must have taken off from territory other than Guatemalan? Does he intend to adopt the same attitude towards the loss of this British ship as the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to adopt during the Spanish civil war, or will he stand up for British interests?

I should imagine that there are very few aeroplanes in this part of the world that are not of American type.

Will the Minister verify from the Fact-Finding Committee which has gone out, I understand, on behalf of the United Nations, what the aircraft was, who gave the licence for its purchase and whether the United Fruit Company had anything to do with it?

Certainly. We shall try to find out whatever we can about an aircraft which, to whichever side it belonged, did a very wrong thing.

If the Minister of State tells us that we should proceed on a de facto basis, should we not address our communications to the United Fruit Company?

We have no reason to believe that there is any truth at all in what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Of course, one advantage of the present de facto set up is that it appears to be a coalition of old and new elements in the Guatemalan Government. In those circumstances, we are pressing our claim with the new Guatemalan Government.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the two colonels concerned have been photographed kissing each other, so is not the show all over?

Will the Minister say where the 39 men—whom he has accepted in this "much exaggerated" event—obtained the napalm bombs which were put down on the British ship, and how the aircraft came into the possession of the rebels? Will he not ask the United States Government if they sold the ammunition to the rebels?

This is a matter to be investigated, but the hon. and learned Gentleman, in assuming that the United States Government are responsible in some way for this, is. I believe, stating something which is wholly divorced from the truth.

After the British ship had been bombed did the right hon. Gentleman instruct the new British representative to fly at once to Guatemala or did he tell him on no account to interrupt his holiday?

That is quite an unfair remark. The British representative was doing his best to get to Guatemala City, but it was impossible for him to get there. He was not on holiday at all, and I think that it is a quite irresponsible smear to have made a remark of that sort. The minute this incident happened Her Majesty's representatives in all these countries were instructed to make urgent inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Security Council took with regard to the complaint made by Guatemala regarding the machine-gunning and bombing by foreign aircraft of Guatemala's civilian population; and what part the British delegate took in the discussion of this matter.

The complaint of the Guatemalan authorities was considered by the Security Council on 20th June. A resolution referring the complaint to the Organisation of American States for urgent consideration and requesting the Organisation of American States to inform the Security Council as soon as possible on the measures it had been able to take was vetoed by the representative of the Soviet Union. The Security Council then unanimously approved a resolution calling for the immediate termination of any action likely to cause bloodshed and requesting all members of the United Nations to abstain from giving assistance to any such action.

Will the Minister be good enough to answer "Yes," or "No," to a simple question? Is it a fact that American aircraft, manned by American pilots, machine-gunned Guatemalan civilians and dropped napalm bombs on Guatemala, and that Her Majesty's Government were well aware of that fact?

That is certainly not the case. Her Majesty's Government have no information of that kind whatsoever.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of all the answers to all these Questions about Guatemala, may I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that if the matter is not otherwise debated between now and then it shall be debated for at least two hours on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?

I shall consider that question along with the many other requests which I have received.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he received from the Government of Guatemala prior to the recent disturbances, indicating the danger of armed attack and the details of the bombing of open towns and villages with consequent danger to British subjects; and whether he will publish the whole of the correspondence as a White Paper.

Last January, Her Majesty's Legation at Guatemala City received a copy of a statement which the Guatemalan Government had issued to the Press about the plans of Guatemalan exiles. No other communication received before the disturbances began indicated the danger of armed attack.

As I have already said, I am issuing a White Paper on this subject.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that he received, during the disturbances, cables stating exactly what was happening and what risks were being undergone by British subjects in the territory? Is he aware that it is important that the fullest information should be made available, so that we should know whether this was an old type of civil war of insurrection, or whether it was the iron heel in action?

I certainly think the hon. Gentleman's request is very reasonable, and I will seek to give the fullest possible information in the White Paper.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of getting the facts from the Fact-Finding Committee, is it not a fact that now that the aggression has paid, the Fact-Finding Committee is to be wound up?

I have never limited myself to saying that we only seek to get the facts from the Fact-Finding Committee. In answer to an earlier question, I said that we had no power to insist upon that, but we will certainly do all we can to see that the full facts are found.

I understood the Minister to say that Her Majesty's Government did not intend that the outcome of this revolution should prevent the Security Council from inquiring into this question whether there had been an act of aggression. How can they do that if there is no report of the facts received by them? Are we to understand now from the Minister that the Fact-Finding Committee has been wound up and that there is no independent body making any investigation into the facts in Guatemala?

I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. All I was saying, in answer to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), was that Her Majesty's Government were not limiting their sources of information to anything that might be discovered by the Fact-Finding Committee. To my knowledge the Fact-Finding Committee has not been wound up, but has simply returned from Mexico City to Washington.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper containing the correspondence, diplomatic notes and other correspondence which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Guatemala from April, 1953, to the present date.

I will consider this in connection with the White Paper to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he be good enough to include in that statement all the Notes which were issued following the bombardment of Corfu? Before congratulating himself on the fact that the Guatemalan aggression has fizzled out will he bear in mind that it was this kind of fighting which led to the First World War, and what is now happening in Guatemala might produce a similar result?

If any White Paper covered all the similar incidents which have happened in the past it would be a very long one indeed.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the replies which he has made on the question of Guatemala this afternoon indicate that Her Majesty's Government's policy is that intervention by the United Nations in cases of aggression is premature before that aggression has succeeded?

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not the position. In this case there is a body of the States concerned, of which Guatemala is a member and to whose charter she has subscribed, and that body was admirably placed to take such steps as were necessary. As Argentina and Mexico are both members of the Organisation, I should have thought there could be no doubt about the balance of opinion in the Fact-Finding Committee.

Does the Minister agree that, summarising the Questions which have been asked by the party opposite, it is the opinion of that party that we should intervene in a civil war?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the action of the British delegate on the Security Council was designed to give time for this aggression to succeed, and that if this country had wished to avoid delay in the handling of this matter the best way would have been for the Security Council to have handled it itself, in which case Russia would not have vetoed the proposals?

The hon. Lady is misinformed. The Russian veto took place on 20th June. The British Government took the action they did because there was no other way in which progress could have been made. I do not believe that any other resolution would have escaped a veto.

asked the Minister of Food in how many cases compensation has been paid to persons who contracted trichinosis in Liverpool recently: and when he decided that his Department was liable.

In no case has liability been admitted or compensation been paid by my Department.

Is the Minister aware that it has been stated that in two cases compensation has already been paid by his Department? Will he look into this matter carefully because there are about 90 cases, and if liability is to be accepted in some the others ought also to be considered?

I think there is some misunderstanding. I believe that two claims have been made against the retailer—the Liverpool Co-operative Society—and it may be that they have been settled, but no claim has as yet been made or sustained in regard to my Department.

Will the Minister confirm that the pig responsible for this outbreak of trichinosis was the responsibility of the Ministry of Food, that the Ministry has already accepted responsibility, and that it was because of that fact that the Medical Officer of Health's Department in Liverpool was unable to trace the pig past the abattoir?

The Ministry will not deny anything which is its proper responsibility, but in the circumstances I suggest that it would be wiser to say no more at present.

asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure that food is handled in as clean a manner as possible.

Although the responsibility rests primarily on local authorities the Ministry encourages and helps; for example, it lends films and exhibition material, it issues model byelaws, working party reports and such publications as "Clean Catering."

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the whole House appreciates his personal interest in this matter? Is he further aware, however, that there is now a widespread feeling that the Government are not going to proceed with the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill? In view of his personal interest in the matter, will he set about his more reactionary colleagues and try to save this Bill?

The hon. Member will realise that that is a matter not for me, but for the Leader of the House. Secondly, he will remember the statement which I made in the discussions on the Slaughterhouses Bill last week.

asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to provide that the meat content of sausages is brought to the notice of consumers.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) on 15th June.

As the trade and the consumers wish to have this protection, does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that it would be worth while to hold further discussions with the trade to see whether or not it could be enforced in one way or another?

Advice on this point has been offered to the trade and the trade organisations have passed that advice to their members.

As the matter cannot be properly dealt with until we have the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, cannot the hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House whether we are likely to have the Bill this Session or not?

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of its general value to the food industry, he will continue the publication of the Ministry of Food Bulletin.

No, Sir.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this is a first-class publication, and that, although a great deal of the Ministry's responsibility will cease with the end of rationing, it might still serve a useful purpose and, therefore, be worth while continuing, at any rate for a time?

I agree that has been a quite useful publication, but two-thirds of the copies have gone for internal distribution, and, bearing in mind that the loss has been about £50 an issue, it seems that with the end of rationing this is an, economy we could usefully make.

asked the Minister of Food what complaints he has received from the east of Scotland regarding the quantities of beef, mutton and pork available during the last 10 days.

The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders' Associations has complained of a low proportion of beef in the final meat allocation.

Taking things broadly, is it not very satisfactory that these few days at the end of rationing and beginning of derationing have passed off with so little dislocation?

I do not dissent from the view my hon. and gallant Friend has expressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while there may be complaints about the quantity in East Scotland, according to reports today the quantities of meat at Smithfield Market were actually excessive, but that the prices were the highest ever known in the history of the trade? Can he suggest how to bring the prices down in the interests of the consumers?

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not jump too speedily to condemnation of the first day of freedom.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am not condemning anybody or anything? I am only asking whether, in view of the high prices recorded at Smithfield Market this morning, the hon. Gentleman can suggest how to get the prices down.

My suggestion is that we should wait for a few days to see from experience the prices at which meat is sold.

asked the Minister of Food what further consultations he has had with the catering trade regarding the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill; and what changes have been made in the proposed regulations as a result.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will announce the result of his discussions with catering trade organisations on food hygiene.

A revised draft of proposals for food hygiene regulations was circulated to representative organisations, including those representing the catering trade, on 31st May. It is too soon to say what changes, if any, will result, as many replies have still to come in.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether it is true that more than half the valuable safeguards originally contained in the regulations have been dropped in view of the pressure of the catering industry? Does he propose to bring forward the attenuated Bill later this Session?

It is true that after the first series of proposals a revision was made for the second version, in the light of the comments and criticisms received. It is the second version that is now the subject of the criticism of the associations of local authorities and other bodies concerned, and we shall continue this practice of consulting those affected.

Has not the Government's abject surrender to the catering trade pressure dealt a very damaging blow to the clean food campaign? Will the hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government so to allow the regulations to be whittled down as to continue to make it easy for dirty food to be served in dirty cafés?

A study of the second draft of the proposals would reveal that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion of an abject surrender is contrary to the facts.

No. The hon. Gentleman should read it himself.

In view of the fact that the Leader of the House has persistently and obstinately declined to inform the House what the prospects of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill are, could the Parliamentary Secretary, with his greater knowledge, put the House out of its misery by telling us about the state of the Bill, because he obviously knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, who often is not fully up to date with Parilamentary business?

Is it the Government's policy now that the standard of hygiene shall be as high as the lowest of the dirtiest firms in the catering industry?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is making a completely unfounded suggestion. It is right and proper that when proposals for new standards are brought in they should be submitted for the comments and views of all those concerned. That is what is happening in this case.

asked the Minister of Supply to what extent Her Majesty's Government propose to make available to the other Governments of the United Nations the results of the recent experiments in bacteriological warfare in which H.M.S. "Lomond" took part.

The report upon the results of the trials is not yet completed. Until I receive it, I cannot say whether it would be suitable for publication.

asked the Minister of Supply whether the claim of the superintendents of Royal ordnance factories for a revision of salaries has yet been settled.

If, by the word "settled," the hon. Member means accepted, the answer is, No, Sir.

In view of the fact that it was thought advisable to have the matter referred to arbitration, is there any reason why that should not be done?

That would not be the normal practice in cases of this kind. It would be a complete departure from the procedure that has been followed previously.

asked the Minister of Supply when the National Advisory Council for the Motor Industry last met; and which of its recommendations he proposes to publish.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, 28th April. The answer to the second part is, None, Sir.

Is it not the case that this potentially valuable body has been allowed to become moribund under the present Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to issue regular reports and to call regular meetings and to strengthen this body by increasing its trade union representation?

I do not know why the hon. Member thinks it has become moribund. It met about two months ago and is to meet again at the end of this month.

asked the Minister of Supply what functions it is proposed to transfer away from his Department in the foreseeable future; the approximate date of the transfer; the Departments to which they are to be transferred; and the number of staff which will become redundant.