asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made or will make representations to the Soviet Trade Delegation that the total proceeds received in England from sales of confiscated property of British firms should be paid into a fund for the benefit of sufferers from Soviet legislation?

I fear we are not in a position to act as the hon. Member suggests, but he will be aware from papers which have been laid before the House and from repeated statements made by Members of this and the late Government of the anxiety felt and efforts made to protect the interests of British subjects which have suffered by Soviet legislation.

Mr. DOYLE:

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the trade agreement with the Soviet Government has for its effect to deprive British nationals of their remedy before British Courts of Law when property that has been confiscated or stolen from them is imported into or sold in Britain; and whether he proposes to remedy this?

I am of course aware of the consequences flowing from the judgment given in the Sagor appeal case and of the grounds upon which that judgment was based. Every effort will, as I have repeatedly stated, be made to protect the interests of former British property owners in Russia, but I cannot at present state the form which these efforts will assume.

Mr. DOYLE:

Is it not time, in view of the known attitude of the Soviet Government, that some definite steps should be taken?

If my hon. Friend will look at my answer, I think he will find that I have answered that question.

Under the trade agreement, were not the rights of British subjects who supplied goods to the Soviet recognised by that Government? Was there not a conference to be appointed to settle these matters; and why has that conference not been called together?

I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the continued existence in England of the Soviet Trade Delegation prevents the return to British nationals of large properties that have been forcibly confiscated; and what action does he propose to take?

In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Mr. Doyle). The House is aware that the general question of the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government is under discussion.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the moneys received by the Soviet Government as the result of sales to British companies of the confiscated property of British nationals is employed mainly in the purchase of material in other countries, and large sums of British money diverted from British industry to foreign countries with a resultant aggravation of unemployment in Britain; and does he contemplate taking steps in the matter?

I have no information on the subject of the first part of the question. I have no doubt that the Soviet Government, like ordinary merchants, try to sell in the dearest and buy in the cheapest market, and I can conceive of no scheme by which this practice could be altered by us in our own interest.

Lieut.-Col. Sir P. RICHARDSON:

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 70,000 tons of kerosene, largely the property of British nationals, has been sold by the Soviet Government to a company registered in England; whether he has any information as to an option of sale for a further 130,000 tons; and whether, seeing that the effect of such sale is to provide money for the purchase of materials mainly in foreign countries and for anti-British propaganda purposes, he will take any action in the matter?

I have no information on the subject of this question beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. On that information, the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British oil companies in Baku and Grozny, having at least 40,000 shareholders, have had their property confiscated by the Russian Soviet Government; that their shareholders have in many cases been reduced to poverty; and that oil products from these properties have since been sold for delivery to other companies by the Soviet Government; what action has been taken by the British Government to secure com- pensation for British nationals whose property has been appropriated in this manner; and whether steps will be taken to prevent any British company from acquiring or selling in this country any products which have been appropriated from British owners in Russia?

The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no doubt the confiscation of the Russian oilfields has had serious consequences for the shareholders. In reply to the fourth part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the published Report of the Conferences at Genoa and The Hague. His Majesty's Government have no power to prevent the sale in this country of goods appropriated by the Soviet Government, and recognised as their property by the English Courts.

Does the Under-Secretary not see how necessary it is to terminate the trade agreement with Russia, seeing that these goods are being sold in this country?

That is a question of policy on which opinions may differ.

Can there be any difference of opinion about stolen British goods being sold in Great Britain?

Are we to understand that British subjects can no longer look to the British Government for any protection in this respect?

It would be a great mistake to make such an assumption.

Have we not already spent about £20,000,000 in trying to upset this Government?