asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of the present negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government.

As the discussions we are having with the Egyptian Government are still only exploratory, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I would prefer not to make a statement at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the people of this country as a whole share his desire for an equitable settlement with Egypt, at the same time he has the support of the overwhelming majority in his refusal to sacrifice the interests of the Sudan in order to obtain a settlement?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider means by which representative Sudanese could be brought in to take part in the negotiations with Egypt, now taking place on the future of the Sudan.

This possibility has been under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, but I would prefer to make no further statement about it at present.

Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind how desirable it is that the Sudanese should take part as far as possible in these negotiations?

Yes, Sir, very much

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a satisfactory reply from the Egyptian Government with regard to the payment of compensation to the next of kin of British subject who were killed in the recent riots in Cairo; how far damages have been awarded for the destruction of British property; and whether British subjects illegally dismissed from the Civil Service, in spite of their contracts, have received adequate compensation for loss of office.

In spite of repeated representations to the Egyptian Government, compensation has not yet been paid either to the dependants of those who lost their lives or to those who suffered personal injury or damage to their property during the riots. Three months' salary in lieu of notice has been paid to the dismissed officials, but payment has not been made of allowances for the same period nor of compensation for loss of employment on an adequate scale, in view of the terms on which they were engaged. We therefore renewed our representations on all these points as recently as 1st May.

In view of the fact that, according to reliable correspondents in Cairo, deliberate incitement by the police took place in the murders at the Turf Club, when youths were armed with weapons with which these murders were carried out, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his negotiations with the Egyptian Government insisted that adequate compensation must be paid to the next of kin?

I think one factor to be borne in mind is that there is now a different Government in Egypt than there was at the time that these incidents took place. We have made strong representations with regard to this matter, and I think that for the moment the matter had better lie there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the Persian Government in respect to their complaint about British interference in Bahrain; and how far the Persian claim to sovereignty over it is recognised by Her Majesty's Government.

Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the Persian claim to sovereignty over Bahrain. Her Majesty's Representative in Tehran therefore replied to the Persian Government on 1st May rejecting the Persian complaint of British interference in the affairs of the Island. I am placing a copy of Her Majesty's Representative's Note Verbale in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that the Arab population of the whole of that area is entirely against any further encroachment of that territory by the Persians?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what compensation has been obtained for the onslaught on the British-owned church at Seville, when valuable property was destroyed, including hymn-books and prayer-books.

In his Note to the Spanish Government of 18th March, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid reserved the right to claim compensation for the damage done. After consultation with the owners of the property, Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed on 2nd May to present a claim.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the attack on the Protestant church in Seville was a signal for numerous attacks in other parts of Spain of exactly the same kind, for instance in Badajoz where prayer books and hymn-books were also burned? Will he not make representations to the Spanish Government as to the deplorable impression made in this country by the continued persecution of Protestants?

Those are different matters from those referred to in the Question. With regard to this incident, the Spanish Government expressed regret as to what happened and we are now making further representations about compensation.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) commands universal approval on both sides of the House? Will he represent to the Government of the United States and other Governments the undesirability of including Spain under the present régime in any organisation for defending democracy or the Christian faith?

That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the approval of the House of Commons the contractual agreement now being negotiated with the Federal Government of Western Germany before final ratification.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain how it is that members of the Federal Parliament in Bonn have seen copies of these agreements and even have some in their possession? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give Members of this House an opportunity of making suggestions with regard to these agreements and that we shall not be presented with a fait accompli as we were when the Italian and Finnish treaties were laid before us?

My hon. Friend knows the constitutional position perfectly well. I have said "Yes" in answer to his Question. If he wants to ask another Question, perhaps he will put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the terms of the contractual agreement being negotiated between the British and West German Governments; and how far, as a result of these agreements, any further occupational costs will fall on the British taxpayer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the proposed new contractual relationship with the German Federal Republic will not contain any financial clauses that will increase the burden falling upon the British taxpayer in relation to the common defenses of Western Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much extra he estimates will be the cost of our Armed Forces in Germany if the present German contribution is reduced, as officially proposed, to enable the Germans to re-arm themselves.

As I informed the House on 28th February, the Federal Government has agreed that from the date of the entry into force of the contractual agreement until 30th June, 1953, it will pay 850 million deutschemarks—about £70 million—a month to cover the German contribution to the European Defence Community and the support of the Allied Forces stationed in the Federal Republic.

Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the first part of the Question, which asks him whether he will state the terms of the contractual agreement? Does he not consider it highly undesirable, as suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory), that these matters should have been discussed by the German Parliament and not disclosed to Members of the British Parliament?

Is the hon. and learned Member dealing with the terms of the contractual negotiation?

Yes, the first part of the Question which asks whether he will state the terms of the contractual agreement.

These are being negotiated between us and the German Government. The position with regard to these negotiations is perfectly well known to the House. The responsibility for the signature of the agreement is that of the Government of the day. I have repeatedly told the House, and I again repeat, that there will of course be full opportunity for debate before ratification takes place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of this agreement have been disclosed to individual members of the German Parliament, and will he not afford the same facility to Members of the British Parliament?

There may have been some disclosure of information to leaders of the parties—I do not know—but our constitutional position is perfectly clear. The Government of the day takes responsibility for concluding any negotiation, but it is for Parliament to ratify. I have repeatedly stated, and I repeat now, that this House will have the fullest opportunity for discussion before ratification.

Does the Foreign Secretary's reply with regard to the cost mean that, as has been reported in the Press, if the present financial negotiations go through and permit of German re-armament, the British taxpayer will have to pay between £150 million and £200 million more to the British occupation costs in Germany than at present?

No, Sir. What I have been dealing with is the period up to 30th June next year in respect of which, although I cannot undertake, I think that the sum available will cover both matters. After that we shall be in a new position, which will require a new assessment. But the House must understand that the problem which we are faced with is creating a defensive position in Germany, which is a problem that the late Government had to face and entered, therefore, into these discussions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries about this alleged disclosure of part of this information in Bonn and, if not, does he not think he ought to do so if they are, in fact, in possession of information which is denied to us?

Yes, I have made inquiries. I have asked the High Commissioner for a report. But our own constitutional position is perfectly plain. The Government of the day takes responsibility for the signature of the agreement. Parliament has every right, and—I have pledged repeatedly—will have the fullest opportunity for discussion before ratification.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is intended that the contractual agreements between the British and West German Governments will be ready for signature; and if he will submit these agreements in draft to Parliament before signature.

On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given on this point to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 5th May. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer to the reply already given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim. South (Sir D. Savory).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present annual output of occupational costs in respect of West Germany that falls on the British taxpayer; and what amount is now being proposed in negotiations with the West German Government.

If the hon. Member is referring to internal occupation costs, these are incurred in German currency and none fall on the British taxpayer. External occupation costs, which include military equipment and pay of Her Majesty's Forces, have always been met by the Powers concerned.

Could the Foreign Secretary now say when it will be possible for him to give an estimate in plain terms of what is the increase in these costs as a result of this treaty?

I thought that I could hardly have made it plainer. The position is that, until a certain date next year—it may be in June, or it may be a little earlier—there will be no change in respect of our occupation costs. After that date, and I cannot say what date it will be, because it depends how far expenditure is divided between the German contribution and our own—it may be the end of April or the end of June—after that date, there will certainly be an extra contribution of ours on account of the contribution the Germans themselves are making.

In any event, if some time there is to be a peace treaty concluded with Germany, will it not be necessary to readjust the occupation costs?

That is absolutely inevitable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state in terms of prices at the latest convenient date the percentage of defence expenditure in terms of the national product proposed to be expended by Great Britain for the year 1952-53 and the corresponding percentage which it is proposed under the contractual agreement between Great Britain and the West German Republic shall be expended by Western Germany.

The expenditure by the German Federal Republic recommended by the Executive Bureau of the Temporary Council Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as comparable with the defence efforts of the other principal Western countries in the year ending 30th June, 1953, and accepted by the Federal Government as a basis for its defence expenditure, was 10.5 per cent. of the estimated gross national product. When the United Kingdom defence effort was examined by the Temporary Council Committee last November, it was estimated that our defence expenditure would, on the same basis, amount to 12.8 per cent. of gross national product. Since then, circumstances have changed, but material is not yet available to provide an up-to-date comparative figure.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give us some further figures?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult me about that. I should like to give the information as soon as I can. The point is that actually our expenditure is not now as high as 12.8 per cent. It is difficult to give a figure, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman and give it to him.

If Soviet troops had control of Europe, would it be cheaper for the British taxpayers?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions or safeguards there will be under the new contractual relationship with the German Federal Republic, to ensure the promotion of democratic institutions and trade unions in Germany and to prevent the revival of militaristic nationalism, anti-semitism and other phenomena characteristic of the Nazi régime.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) on 5th December last. The importance of measures to prevent a revival of undemocratic tendencies, whether of the Right or the Left, has been fully taken into account in the negotiations between the German Federal Republic and the three Occupying Powers.

If there are such safeguards or guarantees, as was also indicated by the Minister of State in his reply to Question No. 41, how is that reconcilable with the resolution of the Bundestag demanding complete sovereignty for the Federal Republic?

Well, Sir, certain arrangements have been entered into in these negotiations. As I have explained many times to the House today, there will be full opportunity for this House to debate those arrangements before they are finally ratified. Clearly, I cannot go into the details of them at this time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the order of the day, approved by the French National Assembly on 19th February, 1952, which declares that the contractual agreements to be made with the West German Government must include the necessary guarantees on the subject of armament manufacture, police and division of financial burdens; what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Government's representatives in regard to these conditions in connection with the contractual agreements now being negotiated between the British Government and the Federal German Republic; and what are the terms of the necessary guarantees upon which Her Majesty's Government will insist.

As regards German armaments manufacture, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given to the hon. Member for Ayrshire Central (Mr. Manuel). The European Defence Community Treaty provides also for supervision of national police forces.

Can the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that in any contractual agreement to which this country is partner, the wishes of the French people on these vital matters will be respected?

I think that the French Government must speak for the French people. I do not know that I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question means. My responsibility is to speak for the people of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in calling a Four-Power Conference to discuss the possibility of organising free elections in Eastern and Western Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take, or are taking, to ensure that a Four-Power Conference is held as soon as practicable to discuss the proposal to hold free elections in Eastern and Western Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consult with the United States and French Governments with a view to immediately inviting the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics to take part in a conference for the sole purpose of agreeing the necessary arrangements for genuinely free all-German elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to send to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics an answer to their Note of 9th April, 1952.

I am in consultation with the French and United States Governments and also with the German Federal Government about the reply to be sent to the latest Soviet note about Germany. I hope we shall be sending this reply very shortly, but I cannot now anticipate its contents.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be far more suitable from every point of view if we were able to get agreement on Germany than to have two sides of Germany, one armed against the other? Will he taken the utmost steps to secure that conclusion?

I have to bear a great number of matters in mind, of which that is one.

What harm can be done by holding a Four-Power Conference to find out the extent of the sincerity of the Russian proposals? Could not much good be done, and is it not now obvious that unless this vital step is taken, there is little chance of getting any agreement with the West Germans about unity or defence?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to reveal the reply to a Note which cannot yet be made public. I can only say that we certainly do not exclude the possibility of a Four-Power meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good."]—at the appropriate moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Certainly. What is the "Ah" about? Is not that the right way to do it? Have we not the lesson about Four-Power meetings and adequate preparation? What I am not prepared to do is to go into a Four-Power meeting without a proper definition of its objects and a proper preparation for its work.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take what steps are open to him, however, to see that the conference is held almost immediately before any irrevocable step is taken?

We would prefer that the meeting should be properly prepared and that we should clearly understand its purpose and scope, rather than that we should hold it hurriedly with the kind of results which have occurred on previous occasions.

Would the Foreign Secretary say, however, that any proposals for the re-arming of Western Germany should be held up until that conference has been held?

I am certainly not prepared to stop the process initiated by the late Government for the incorporation of the free nations of the West in a joint effort unless and until a meeting with Russia has taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in securing the postponement of consideration of a German contribution to western defence until Four-Power talks have been held to consider the possibility of holding free all-German elections.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have no hope of obtaining the whole-hearted co-operation of the West German people with the West if he insists on rushing through a treaty in accordance with a rigid timetable which excludes all possibility of examining seriously the Soviet note before irrevocable decisions are taken, and if he genuinely desires the integration of Germany with the West, is it not more important to meet German desires on this, than merely to get mechanical arrangements with them?

I do not know what authority the hon. Lady has to express the German desires. So far as I judge the situation, there is no reason whatever for us to halt in the arrangements we are making. I think that if we do, the result for the future peace of Europe might be disastrous. Continuing the work which the late Government rightly started in this respect does not peclude a constructive reply to the Soviet note. I asked the hon. Lady to await that reply before she judges its character unsatisfactorily.

Is it not a fact that it was the policy of Western Defence carried through at Lisbon which induced the Russian Government to put in their Note about German unity?

I should have thought that any intelligent observer would have been fully alive to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the agreements with Western Germany now being negotiated are consistent with the principle that German re-armament should only be permitted if the re-armament of countries of the Atlantic Treaty precede that of Germany; that German units are integrated in the defence forces in a way which would preclude an emergence of German militarism; and that the free agreement of the German people to rearmament has been obtained.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has put forward in negotiations with the West German Government for enabling the German people to express their views on the subject of re-armament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the re-armament of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries shall precede that of West Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will postpone any further demands for a measure of German re-armament until the German people have had an opportunity of expressing their views on the issue at another election.

In December, 1950, the principle of a German contribution to the joint defence of Western Europe was accepted by His late Majesty's Government and all the other N.A.T.O. Governments. I am satisfied that the arrangements now under negotiation for providing for that contribution are consistent with the principles mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). No German units will be recruited until the European Defence Community Treaty has been ratified. Their formation and their equipment will take place within the European Defence Community in accordance with the plans agreed by the North Atlantic Council at Lisbon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman by that reply mean that he is in favour of elections in Germany in order to come to a fair and proper conclusion on this matter, and does he consider that the terms which he is putting forward are in accordance with the terms as set forth in the French order of the day as printed in the White Paper?

I do not know on what grounds the hon. and learned Member raises the questions of elections in Germany. The present German Government was elected under processes approved by the Allies and is as entitled to respect as any other Government, such as the late Socialist Government, which had a much smaller majority than Dr. Adenauer has today.

Has there been any communication from the Government of the United States about the possibility of a meeting in Berlin with the representatives of the four Governments there about arranging elections in Germany? If so, what has been the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Can the Foreign Secretary give the assurance that in the coming negotiations he will not play the part of an inverted Mr. Molotov and say, "No. no" when the people of this country want him to say "Yes"?

I have a feeling that the people of this country would expect me to express myself as I did just now to the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite: that I am perfectly ready at any time to enter into any reasonable negotiation, but that I am not going to a Palais Rose waste of time like we had last summer.

May I have a reply to the first part of the question?

The reply will be issued by the Powers concerned together, and the hon. Member will be surprised to learn that they are in agreement about it.

Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the German people have been consulted about the proposals now being put forward? This is a different situation to 12 months ago. What steps have been taken to discover the attitude of the German people towards these proposals, and how far does the right hon. Gentleman claim that the German people agree to the agreements now being made?

The present German Government was elected by the German people, as are other free Governments in other countries of the West. When the previous Government made the agreement last September, to which we are now giving expression, there was no question of challenging the proper representative quality of the present German Government nor am I prepared to challenge that quality any more than the quality of any other Government freely elected by the electors.

Would it not be an interference in the internal affairs of Germany and also undermine the authority of Dr. Adenauer if we were to refuse to continue negotiations until there was a general election in Germany?

I am in full agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will instruct his hon. Friends accordingly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no step will be taken to agree to the re-armament of Western Germany before a debate has taken place in this House upon that subject.

The principle of a German contribution to Western defence was accepted by His late Majesty's Government and the other N.A.T.O. Governments in December, 1950, and reaffirmed in the Washington Declaration of September, 1951. As I have already said, the texts of the Agreements with Western Germany to which Her Majesty's Government will be party will be submitted in full to the House before being ratified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement on the extent of the West German defence contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the course of the official negotiations for German rearmament now taking place.

I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 5th May.

Will the Foreign Secretary take an early opportunity of making clear to the country exactly what is the additional financial burden that will be cast upon this country by these proposals?

I thought I had already made it clear that it is our hope that, until 30th June next year, the financial burden will not be of a serious character. After that, it will be necessary to make a fresh calculation on the basis of the situation as we then find it.

In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement on the possible additional burden which will be imposed on the people of this country if that step is not taken?

I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree with every word of his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Representatives on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to request a joint meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community to consider the text of the treaty dealing with the re-armament of Germany; and whether he will arrange for the draft of the treaty to be laid before Parliament before it is submitted to the European Defence Community for ratification.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to request that a joint meeting with the European Defence Organisation be held in order to examine the terms of the proposed treaty with Western Germany and to ensure that it contains no provision which would result in a re-emergence of German militarism.

No joint meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community can be held until the European Defence Community comes into existence. The Treaty setting up the European Defence Community will come into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Contractual Agreement with the German Federal Republic. The question of submitting either that Agreement or the European Defence Treaty to a joint meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community prior to ratification cannot, therefore, arise. But as soon as the draft of the European Defence Community Treaty is complete, it will be examined by the North Atlantic Council to confirm that it includes, amongst other things, adequate safeguards against the danger of a revival of German militarism.

What steps does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to influence decisions which are being taken by E.D.C. so as to prevent undesirable features in German re-armament?

That matter, should it arise, will be dealt with by the North Atlantic Council, who will have a full opportunity of seeing whether those safeguards against the danger which the hon. Member fears are provided for

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he has reached no agreement so far with the German Federal Republic in regard to armament production in Germany.

In my statement to the House on 28th February, I explained how the question of German armaments production will be dealt with in the European Defence Community, with safeguards covering the interests of this country and the United States of America.

Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that he did say, on the occasion which he indicated, that—

"we reached agreement among ourselves which will, we hope, prove to he an acceptable basis for a very early solution of this difficult issue." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th February. 1952: Vol. 496, c. 1469.]

All these are questions of balance, and I think the House must face the fact that, unless Germany takes her fair share in the defence of the West, this country and other countries that bear that burden are going to be placed in an economic position of the utmost difficulty.

Will the questions now being discussed at Bonn include the possibility of the Federal German Republic undertaking research into atomic weapons and the production of such weapons?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down. He will realise that it is a question of some importance with which I should like to deal carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money has been spent since 1945 on re-educating the Germans.

The "re-education" of Germans was carried out in prisoner-of-war camps in the United Kingdom and the Middle East until repatriation was effected during 1947 to 1948. The approximate cost of this work from April, 1946, to the end was £310,000.

Having spent this £1,800,000, are the British taxpayers now to understand that we are going not through the process of re-educating the Germans but of de-educating the Germans and cancelling out our previous reeducation? Has the Minister come into contact with the new word that has been published in the German Press—the word "reducarmament"?

The whole purpose of the arrangements which the Government are seeking to make now is to draw Germany into the free Western world, and this work of cultural and educational contacts between the two peoples seems to me to be of very great value towards that end.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that the quickest and the surest way of persuading the masses of the German people that Hitler was wrong is to tell them now that without their help Western civilisation cannot be defended?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the resolution adopted by the West German Bundestag, of 8th February, 1952, and referred to in Command Paper No. 8492, in relation to the release of German war criminals; and whether it is now proposed by Her Majesty's Government to release these criminals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the resolution on war criminals, adopted by the Bundestag on 8th February, 1952, and published in Annex E of Command Paper No. 8492.

Provisions governing the future handling of the problem of war criminals will be included in the contractual agreements now being negotiated with the German Federal Government. In the working out of these provisions, account was naturally taken of the resolution of the Bundestag, as of all other relevant factors. The House will be informed of all the provisions of the agreements when the negotiations have been completed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that these criminals who committed terrible crimes against humanity during the last war will in no circumstances whatever be allowed to take positions of authority, either in Germany or in E.D.C.?

The Question deals clearly with the release of German war criminals, and I repeat what I have said. It is not proposed to release war criminals except on the normal expiry of their sentences, or in accordance with procedures which may be agreed for the termination or reduction of their sentences. I repeat that the House will have an opportunity of debating this matter fully before any such proposal can be put into effect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that Question No. 39 also deals with the Bundestag resolution, and, in view of the terms of that resolution as published in the White Paper, can he give an undertaking that it will not be possible for these released war criminals to be recruited in the German forces of the future, and, perhaps, into Western European forces, to hold command over British troops?

I think that is exactly a matter which should be discussed when the matter is debated in the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Resolution No. 4 of the Bundestag says that the Bundestag considers it necessary that the war criminals should be released, and are Her Majesty's Government acceding to this demand?

No. All I said was that the resolution was one of the matters to be taken into account during these negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken through the United Nations to secure that in those parts of South Korea where conditions are now stable a scheme of land reform is initiated; and whether the government of Mr. Syngman Rhee has been informed of the desirability of this step.

In their Report to the Sixth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, covering the period from 7th October, 1950, to 5th September, 1951, the United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea expressed the view that, as a result of the Land Reform Act of 1949, the evils of the system of land tenure previously existing in South Korea have to a large extent already been removed. The Commission consider that this is greatly to the credit of the Government of the Republic of Korea, which, despite the fighting, has pressed on with land reform.

Could the Minister tell us what were the evils which were removed, to which he referred in his answer?

If I may give an example of what has happened, by 20th April, 1951, a total of about 1,700,000 acres had been distributed to about 1,200,000 recipients, each household receiving an average of 1.3 acres.

But as this is Bolshevism, could the Minister tell us what the war has been about?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the results of the talks on Trieste.

The talks are still proceeding. I should, therefore, prefer to make no further statement at present.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these talks will be completely unprejudicial to the final settlement as regards Trieste? Secondly, if that is so, is he taking this opportunity to impress upon the Italians the desirability of attempting to reach full agreement with Yugoslavia over that final settlement through negotiation?

The reply to the first part of the supplementary is "Yes." As to the second part, I hope very much that both sides will deal with this matter directly with each other. It is the only way by which a reasonable settlement can be effectively arrived at.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Yugoslavs are being kept fully informed about the talks and that they are not simply handed Press communiqués?

We are keeping them informed, but it is difficult to inform other people until we have reached a stage of agreement ourselves. We hope that agreement will be reached in the next few days, and if that is so we shall, of course, give advance information to the Yugoslav Government on the results of our work.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the committee of inquiry into the overseas information and broadcasting services has yet reported; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) on this subject.

I have seen that reply, but may I ask the Minister whether this matter is being treated as one of urgency? The debate on this subject took place five or six weeks ago and the committee has been sitting since then. When can we expect some information?

The important fact is that this inquiry should be carried out satisfactorily and thoroughly, as my right hon. Friend has said.

Was it not extremely foolish to make these serious cuts in the information services and then hold the inquiry afterwards? Why was the inquiry not held first to see whether the cuts were needed?

That is a matter which was fully debated during the debate on the subject.

Could my right hon. and learned Friend indicate why the Socialist Government did not hold an inquiry last year before the cuts were made?

,—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what report he has received from Her Britannic Majesty's representative on the Control Commission at Tangier with reference to recent events concerning the Istiqlal Party; and what action he proposes to take.

In asking this Question, may I point out that "Istiqlal" should be "Isliqtal"?

I assume the hon. Member is referring to the recent riots which took place in Tangier on the anniversary of the Treaty of Fez which the Istiglal Party observed as a day of mourning. As the hon. Member will be aware, the riots broke out in the afternoon of that day, 30th March. I regret to say that some fatal casualties, damage to property and looting took place. The evidence so far available on the number of deaths is conflicting, but I understand that either six or eight Moors lost their lives and a Swiss national subsequently died as a result of injuries received.

Who will make the inquiry, and how many Arabs will be on the Commission of Inquiry? Would the right hon. Gentleman also inquire what has been the attitude over the last few months of the British representative on the Control Committee, who appears to have agreed to—and, indeed, propounded—many of the infringements of liberty of speech and many of the acts of censorship—indeed, for example, the cutting out of the French Foreign Minister's own newspaper in Tangiers—which have led to the unrest which, unfortunately, has resulted in some incidents?

I do not, of course, agree with the inference that the hon. Member draws, but those are quite different matters. If he puts Questions in regard to them on the Order Paper, I will seek to answer them. Regarding the first part of the question, inquiries will be conducted by certain officers who have been appointed by agreement among the members of the Committee.

How it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot agree to an inference if he does not know the facts and, if he does know the facts, why does he not answer the question?

I should have thought that to have agreed to an inference before knowing the facts would have been somewhat foolish.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent events in Tangier, he will take steps to summon a meeting of the signatories of the Act of Algeciras.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that Act specifically and in the most solemn terms recognises the suzerainty of His Most Cherifian Majesty The Sultan, and does he really think that the surrounding of the Palace by machine guns and the ordering of the Sultan to consent to sign Dahirs under the threat of machine guns is a recognition of his suzerainty, and is it really the attitude of Her Majesty's Government that they are making no protest about this sort of thing?

The Question refers in particular to recent events in Tangier, and it would be better to await the result of the inquiry to which I have referred before deciding on the action to be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what treaties are still in existence between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Since the full list of treaties in force between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him if he thinks that European Defence Community commitments are compatible with the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and the 20-year Treaty, by means of which we undertook not to take part in any coalition directed against the U.S.S.R.?

That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Is it not a fact that the Atlantic Pact and other subsequent agreements composed at Lisbon are directed only against aggression, and not in any way against the Soviet Union?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the Order of the Day, approved by the French National Assembly of 19th February, 1952, and referred to in Command Paper No. 8492, which declares that the French contingents available in Europe, and put at the disposal of the European Defence Community, should at all times be at least equal to those of any other member of the Defence Community, and should not exceed France's financial or manpower capacity; and what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's representatives taking part in the joint negotiations on the implementation of these conditions.

I am aware of the recommendation of the French National Assembly to which the hon. Member refers. The size and scope of the German armed contribution to the European Defence Community in relation to contributions by other countries who will be members of the Community is being discussed in the Paris Conference at which Her Majesty's Government are represented by an observer. The question of sending instructions to Her Majesty's Government's representative does not, therefore, arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government will support the French National Assembly in its request that the French armed forces shall be superior to the German armed forces?

That is primarily a point for the French Government. According to my present information, the proposals of the Paris Conference will effectively meet what the French Government desire.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representative at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to urge upon the United States Government the desirability of equipping the six French divisions, which have no arms, before arming any German forces.

No, Sir. The supply of American equipment to French forces is a matter for agreement between the French and United States Governments.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle that the re-armament of France should precede the re-armament of Germany?

Yes, Sir. I do accept it, but I think that it is a matter that the French Government can be left to handle with the American Government themselves.

Surely it is important to Her Majesty's Government as well, because if the Germans are re-armed before the French no one in the world will believe the story that the E.D.C. is anything but a facade and a cover for German re-armament?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there can be no German re-armament at all until the E.D.C. negotiations are concluded, in which the French are the principal participating party, so I do not think that his supplementary has any foundation in fact at all.

While the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in stating that this is a matter between the French Government and the United States Government, will he not agree that it is exceedingly important that the French divisions should be equipped as speedily as possible?

Yes, Sir; indeed I agree. There is, of course, a bilateral arrangement in existence between the French and United States Governments, and we naturally wish it to take place at the most rapid pace possible. However, I must maintain that it is the responsibility of the British Foreign Secretary to reply for British foreign policy and not for that of our Allies, however intimate they may be.

In view of the basic divergence of opinion on every single aspect of foreign policy among the Opposition which has been revealed today, will my right hon. Friend consider lending them a co-ordinating Minister?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he gave to Her Majesty's Embassy at Moscow to attend and observe the proceedings at the recent International Economic Conference.

This Conference was not organised on a Governmental basis, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow was, therefore, instructed that it would not be appropriate to accept any invitation to attend the proceedings. No such invitation was in fact received.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what was his objection to sending observers to this Conference? [HON. MEMBERS: "There were some."] Well, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if the Government have received a full report of what happened at the Conference, and, if so, where it was obtained?

So far as the question of observation is concerned, I understand that no facilities were provided for the diplomatic Missions in Moscow to observe the proceedings, and the Secretary-General of the Preparatory Commission stated in his opening speech at the Conference:

"The aim was and is to convene a conference of private persons, and not of representatives of Governments."

Is it not a fact that those persons from this country at the Conference had no authority, and were only observers at that Conference?

They were "merchant venturers."

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the transfer of responsibility for the internal control of the Broadmoor institution from the Ministry of Health to the Home Department.

Responsibility for the management of Broadmoor was transferred from the Home Office to the Board of Control by Section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. As at present advised, Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any reason which would justify them in proposing a reversal of the decision so recently taken by Parliament.

Will the Prime Minister amplify the statement made by the Minister of Health yesterday, part of which seemed to prejudge the very issue which the Committee of Inquiry is to investigate, by giving an assurance that the long series of warnings submitted to the appropriate authorities by the Prison Officers' Association will be taken into account by the Committee of Inquiry; and will he give a further assurance that the Home Office continues to be responsible for the protection of innocent people against violence, whether on the part of criminal lunatics or any other section of the population?

I have no doubt that all relevant matters comprised within the scope of their reference, which has not yet been announced, will be taken into consideration by the Committee. But that does not in any way preclude the general consideration of the whole position by Her Majesty's Government.

Can the Prime Minister say whether the possibility of a transfer of responsibility will be within the terms of reference to the Board of Inquiry?

I think that is a decision which is obviously one for the Government.

Can a recommendation be made by the Board of Inquiry?

I have not the terms of reference in my mind at present; I might, therefore, mislead the hon. Gentleman if I tried to guess.

Can the Prime Minister say whether, following the transfer from the Home Office to the Board of Control, the security arrangements at Broadmoor were in fact changed, or whether they substantially remain the same?

I cannot pretend to be conversant with all these details, but the whole matter is to be examined by an inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister when he anticipates instituting his proposals for the reform of the composition and powers of the House of Lords.

Her Majesty's Government intend to call an all-Party conference on this subject as soon as they have taken the necessary measures to deal with the more urgent tasks with which the present economic situation of the country confronts them.

Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when that is likely to take place, or can we take it that this promise, as contained in the Election programme, will eventually be forgotten, as have all the other promises that have been made by the Government?

I think that is an impudent supplementary.

While the Prime Minister may think that impudent, is he not aware of the fact that the mass of the people of the country know it to be true, and is he not further aware of the fact that the borough council elections will prove it?

Is the Prime Minister's somewhat bad-tempered reply to my hon. Friend animated by the election news today?

asked the Prime Minister if he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the economic relationships between England and Scotland, together with other important issues.

As the hon. Member knows, we intend to recommend that a Royal Commission should be appointed. Consideration of its scope must await the report of the Committee presided over by Lord Catto which is investigating the economic and financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that this was another promise contained in the Election programme of the Tories? I am taking this out of his own Election manifesto. Is it not time that the Government implemented some of their promises instead of breaking their promises?