asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of recent progress in the United States of America, he will see that helicopters are made available for the training of raiding forces, in particular Royal Marine Commandos.

I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend on this matter by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on 16th March of this year.

Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that techniques have altered greatly since the end of the Second World War, and would not he undertake to look into the matter again so that at least a small number of these helicopters might be provided for this training?

I certainly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are aware of the importance of these techniques, and I gladly will look into the matter.

Will the Minister also consider, as well as helicopters, the new developments in aircraft capable of takeoff in short distances, which may be in some ways even more promising? Will he take this into consideration as well, because this method might be considerably easier to develop?

I think there is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) in what way the proposed rocket range at South Uist will contribute to our defence;

The range will enable our Service men to get actual experience in firing the guided weapons which are expected to play an increasingly important part in the future defence of this country. I could not agree to any postponement of the plans for this project.

Can the Minister of Defence say in what way a rocket range would be able to stop the dropping of a hydrogen bomb on this country, which is our principal anxiety at the moment? Is he aware that there have been strong criticisms of this range by Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, who says that the cost will be enormous, and does not he think that, in view of the Chancellor's appeal for cutting capital investment at home, there is a good case for re-examining this project?

No. I think it very important that we should develop these guided weapons, because even hydrogen bombs have to be carried by something and if that something can be destroyed before it reaches our shores that may be very useful in the defence of our country.

Can the Minister say how much of the money will be spent in South Uist?

I cannot, without notice.

In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the changes recently announced concerning the relations between his Department and the three Service Departments will reduce the numbers of administrative officers and civil servants concerned with defence matters.

I hope that these steps toward closer co-ordination will in due course make possible some economies of the kind which I think that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I cannot, however, at this early stage make any estimate of numbers.

May I ask the Minister not to delay these economies too long? Is there not a case, now that there has been some measure of co-operation between himself and the three Service Departments, for a reduction in the Civil Service complement and in particular in the military personnel, who ought to be returned to their units where probably they could do better work?

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to an exceedingly important matter which has my constant attention. We very much hope that it will be possible to make a reduction in the headquarters personnel.

asked the Minister of Defence what discussions have taken place on the control and use of British air forces in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what further units of our Air Force in the west it has now been agreed should be placed under the command of General Gruenther in peace or in the event of war.

The best use of the British forces in N.A.T.O. is the subject of close and continuous consultation with the authorities concerned. There have been no special recent discussions on the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. No further forces have been allocated to General Gruenther.

Is not it an unwise policy to, in a sense, divorce our Air Force from the N.A.T.O. command; and in view of the difficulties that beset the French because of the situation in North Africa, and the consequent weakening of N.A.T.O. and our security, would not it be desirable to integrate our Air Force with the N.A.T.O. command more directly?

The right hon. Gentleman talks of divorcing our Air Force from the N.A.T.O. command. Of course, certainly nothing of the sort is contemplated. The Question refers to placing units of our air forces actually "under the command." I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that co-ordination is exceedingly important, and they must operate in the closest association.

asked the Minister of Defence what has been the effect of the withdrawal of French troops from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command in Europe for service in North Africa.

The French ground forces at present available in Europe to General Gruenther have undoubtedly been weakened by the withdrawal of units to North Africa; on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of ensuring the stability of French North Africa.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House what first-line French forces have been withdrawn from N.A.T.O., and does he recollect that under the Paris Agreements the best part of the British armoured forces are committed to Germany because of French insistence, and if France withdraws her own forces what will be the effect on our British forces there? Does it not mean that British forces will be carrying the greater burden?

It cannot be denied that the N.A.T.O. position in Europe is weakened by the withdrawl of French forces. I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question about numbers.

But in those circumstances, while I would agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and with my right hon. Friend, is it not desirable, because of the weakening of the N.A.T.O. position in respect of land forces owing to the withdrawal of French troops, that we should now place at the disposal of General Gruenther the alternative of efficient and effective air forces?

We have every intention that our air forces should work in association with the N.A.T.O. air forces in our air defence, and so far as the bomber force is concerned. That is not quite the same thing as putting them under command.

asked the Minister of Defence what tasks have been assigned to the units of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force at present stationed in Cyprus.

In addition to performing their strategic rôle as part of the British forces in the Mediterranean, the forces now in Cyprus are employed where necessary on internal security duties in aid of the civil power.

Yes, but does not the Minister think it lamentable that these troops, most of whom are trying to do a most unpleasant job as best they can, in a very commendable way, should be tied down in fighting what is rapidly becoming a civil war in Cyprus and be made utterly useless for any other task?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our forces in Cyprus are discharging a very difficult task with courage and humanity, and I think they deserve our thanks. However, the first duty of a Governor is to preserve law and order, and the responsibility for the present situation lies upon those who try to secure their aims by violence.

Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the troops there—I do not ask for numbers—is engaged in strategic rôles, and what proportion is engaged in holding down the local population?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question, I will try to answer it.

Is it not a fact that all the troops there now are completely engaged in their security rôle, and that the original purpose of stationing troops there, which was to have a force available in the Middle East, has come to nothing? Is it not desirable, therefore, even from a purely defence point of view, that we should reach a political settlement?

I agree with the right hon. Gentlemen that it is desirable that a political settlement should be reached, but under present circumstances, and even taking account of all these disturbances, Cyprus is a vital strategic necessity to us.

asked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made in the study of modern defence organisation; and what change in the three Services is to be made as a result of such study.

Progress is being made, and I hope to deal with the matter at some length in the Statement on Defence for 1956.

asked the Minister of Defence how many Service men are still posted as deserters in Korea.

One soldier and one Royal Marine are still posted as deserters in Korea.

Are these two men not the same men who were classified as being illegal absentees in March last, and is the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely satisfied that it would not be just as fair in the circumstances to post them as missing, in order to obviate the need for proceedings later on the part of relatives to presume the deaths of the men concerned?

I am aware of the case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring, that of a third man, but so far as my information goes, we are satisfied in these two cases that they are deserters.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in order to save public money and manpower, he will consider taking under one authority the Naval, Army and Royal Air Force hospitals at home and overseas.

Service hospitals form part of the medical services, which—as I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend on 16th November—have been under examination by Lord Waverley's Committee. I have nothing at present to add to that reply.

Is not this too bad? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when I was Minister of Defence I made a beginning with co-ordination of the hospital and other services, and could we not save a great deal in manpower and finance if we had co-ordination? Why should there be any differentiation in respect of hospital services between the three Service Departments?

I am a little surprised at the supplementary question, because the amalgamation of the medical services of the Armed Forces was rejected by his Government in 1948, and we set up the Committee under Lord Waverley, whose Report has to be examined before we take further steps.

Is not my right hon. Friend referring to the point in this Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite about hospitals at home and overseas, that is to say, the general hospitals, not the field hospitals, and cannot the Minister do something more to amalgamate those?

They form part of the medical services, and Lord Waverley's Committee has looked into the medical services as a whole. Until that Report has been examined and digested, it is premature for me to make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Centurion tanks in respect of which sales to Egypt have been authorised but deliveries have been suspended.

None, Sir.

May I ask my hon. Friend if we have, in fact, as was stated by the New York Herald Tribune, sold 38 Centurion tanks to Egypt, and if we can take it that the Manchester Guardian was misinformed when it stated on 14th September that the sale of 60 such tanks was authorised?

I think my hon. Friend knows that it is not customary to go into numbers, and he can take it that the policy which was last enunciated very clearly in the House on 31st October with regard to the supply of arms to the Middle East will be followed by Her Majesty's Government.

But does the reply mean that we have not suspended the delivery of tanks to Egypt, and if this is the case, will not the Egyptians be in the unique position of being able to try out the British tanks that they are acquiring against the Russian tanks which they have acquired lately, and is not this a preposterous position?

I have answered the Question. It was quite a clear one, and I think my answer was clear, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the considerations that persuaded him to transfer to the Government of Egypt assets in the Suez Canal Base area to a value of £E400,000 in return for permission to use Kensington Village, Fayid, for the accommodation of British technicians.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the £E400,000 of assets in the Canal Zone being handed over to the Egyptian Government; and what proportion is war materials.

Under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, 1954, Kensington Village was not one of the installations to be maintained either by us or by the Egyptians and it would have fallen for disposal. The Egyptians had intended to buy it for the use of their own service families. The 1954 Agreement also provided for some of the contractors' staff to occupy rented accommodation at Ismailia.

Is the Minister now saying that, when the original agreement was made with Egypt, this village was completely forgotten, and that now this village, which was built by British capital and British labour, is being rented from, or paid for to, the Egyptians at a rate of £400,000 in order that our technicians may be allowed to live there for a little while? Is not that an admission of complete muddle in the original Treaty arrangements with Egypt?

No, I think the hon. Gentleman has unwittingly given a very false picture of this transaction.

The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no war material in this £400,000 of assets. Does that mean that there is no material which would normally be usable for the purpose of erecting buildings for war purposes or for any war purpose at all? Or does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it can be used either for civil or for war purposes?

When I say there is no war material, I mean no material which can be used usefully for war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far agreement has been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government that notice should be given to the Egyptian authorities when British vessels are about to enter the Gulf of Aqaba in order to safeguard such vessels against attack.

No formal agreement has been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government about shipping proceeding to the Gulf of Aqaba. Ships sailing to Aqaba from the north are continuing to notify the Customs authorities at Port Said and Suez. Ships from the south now notify Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo, who inform the Egyptian authorities. It is hoped that in future they will be able to notify the Jordan authorities at Amman and Aqaba instead.

Have we sunk so low that we have to acquaint the Egyptian Government of the presence of British vessels in international waters, which are regarded as free to the shipping of all nations? Is that really necessary? If some arrangement has been made through diplomatic channels—apparently through the Ambassador in Cairo—for the freedom of British vessels, does that also apply to other vessels?

We have always maintained our legal position, but we have adopted a de facto arrangement.

Are not these ships engaged upon their lawful occasions? If so, by whose law are they not permitted so to travel?

As I say, we are maintaining our legal position, but for practical purposes we have accepted a situation which enables practical things to be carried out; the ultimate solution of this problem is one which we are seeking with the greatest possible effort, in order to bring the truce to an end and turn it into a peace.

What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that we maintain our legal position in respect of the freedom of British vessels in international waters and, at the same time, saying that for practical purposes—whatever they are—we have to acquaint the Egyptian Government of the intention of British vessels to come into those waters? Is not this an intolerable position?

If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between a de facto and a de jure position, I cannot explain it to him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really asking us to believe that the Egyptians are going to pay any attention to our legal objections when, in fact, we are giving way to them upon the only thing that matters to them, which is to have British ships comply with their illegal regulations?

There are, of course, difficulties in the position which we have adopted, but I think it is the most practical one in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which resolution of the United Nations covers the embargo by Her Majesty's Government on the export of certain goods to North Vietnam.

Security controls on exports to North Vietnam were introduced in order to prevent the shipment to China through that territory of goods embargoed for China in pursuance of the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary call his Minister's attention to the fact that the United Nations Resolution did not lay down any specific list of goods for embargo? Will he also point out that that Resolution related to hostilities in Korea and was directed at bringing those hostilities to a close, and that there is now no longer any sense in these trade embargoes?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has stated quite accurately what the Resolution of 1951 did. It recommended every State

"to apply controls to give effect to the embargo"

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had recently with other member States who are parties to the United Nations Resolution on trade with the Communist bloc about the reduction of strategic controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the discussions taking place on the revision of the list of goods which it is permissible to export to China.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 7th November.

Can the Minister say when this question will be brought forward? Is it not a fact that the basic reason for these controls has now disappeared because that was the existence of hostilities in Korea; and that, therefore, there is now a widespread disregard of these controls by many countries? That being so, would it not be a useful initiative on the part of the Foreign Secretary to bring this matter forward in order that there can be some rationale about the policy of the Western Powers?

All these matters are in our minds, and I am grateful for the relevant arguments which the hon. Gentleman has given me.

All these arguments seem to have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and in the minds of his colleagues for two and a half years now, but we have still had no answer to it at Question Time. Will the Minister say whether, as a result of prolonged lucubrations and the arguments which my hon. Friend has just given to him—which are not new—he is yet in a position to take the initiative in this matter at the United Nations?

I will answer that question. I am not yet in a position to do so.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that this seems to be the only hopeful line of advance towards improved relations between East and West, he can give an assurance that the question is being actively studied by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of the United States?

Yes, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman has just said, in answer to a supplementary question, that he is not in a position to raise the matter at the United Nations. Will he say why not?

Because I do not think it would be timely.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United Nations resolution of 18th May, 1951, on the embargo of exports to China related to arms and implements of war, and, in view of this, whether he will now seek to amend the list of embargoed goods so that we may export to China marine engines for craft engaged in river and coastal trading.

The United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, refers not only to arms and implements of war, but also to transportation materials of strategic value.

Has the President of the Board of Trade told the Foreign Secretary that the firm in Lincoln which has been shipping such goods to China for decades was prevented from selling over £500,000 worth of marine engines? Surely that is perfectly absurd today. Will the hon. Gentleman not press for a revision of the list?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned this, I believe, a day or two ago in the House. I have tried to help him today by explaining that these particular articles are on the list. They do come within the Resolution which he mentioned, but out of which he left a material part.

Since the Foreign Secretary has just said why he will not raise this matter at the United Nations—that it is not timely—can the hon. Gentleman inform the House—or, if he cannot, will he ask his right hon. Friend to inform the House—why it is not timely to raise the question? Can we have a clear answer to a question about which Ministers have been evasive for two and a half years?

There is nothing about timing in this Question.

On a point of order. In view of the continually evasive answers of Ministers to the question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes have been made in Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards the British Council for the Promotion of International Trade; and what advice is now being given to British firms wishing to develop East-West trade regarding the use of the services of this organisation.

There has been no change. The British Council for the Promotion of International Trade is a Communist-front organisation. Firms have been consistently advised in this sense, and Her Majesty's Government have recommended that they should not associate themselves with this organisation. The decision whether to use its services must be left to the patriotic judgment of each firm or individual, but I am confident that those concerned will prefer to use the alternative and reputable channels which exist for the conduct of legitimate trade with the Soviet bloc countries.

If my hon. Friend considers that the continued use of this Council's services is detrimental to British interests, would he say what are the alternative reputable channels through which British firms can develop East-West trade?

As regards trade with China, there is the Sino-British Trade Committee, known as S.B.T.C. That has the full approval and support of Her Majesty's Government. As regards trade with Russia and the European satellites, there are many long-established commercial organisations, trade bodies and chambers of commerce and so on, which can give expert advice. These do not include the London Export Corporation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this answer, which is even a strengthening of the answer given by the Prime Minister two years ago, is completely at variance with the facts; and that this organisation includes some of the most distinguished businessmen and professors in this country who have no Communist affiliations whatsoever? Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that such improvement as has occurred in trade with China in peaceful commodities, on which some Ministers at any rate pride themselves, owes far more to the activities of this organisation than to all the activities of Her Majesty's Government, which have been designed to prevent rather than encourage trade with China?

The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary could hardly be more misleading. His assertions about this organisation are quite wrong, and for their own sakes the sooner his respectable friends get out of it the better.

Will the hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence and give the least evidence to justify the sweeping and incorrect statement that he has just made?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations to raise the question of China's representation on the Security Council when it meets in January, 1956.

No, Sir. I can give no such assurance.

In view of the answer which the Foreign Secretary gave before on this subject, can he say whether it is technically possible for Her Majesty's Government to do that within the terms of the recent United Nations Resolution?

Yes, Sir, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is technically possible, but I do not think that it is practicable to do that, in general. I think that the decision is broadly taken as having covered not only this calendar year but the period of this session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is all part of the same argument which he used with regard to the embargo on trade with China? If it is so, what is he waiting for? What mares him always tell us that the moment is not timely?

Because I do not think that the moment has yet arrived.

Why not?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to encourage the interchange of broadcasts, especially sports broadcasts, between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

My right hon. Friend has been seeking, in negotiation with the Soviet Government at Geneva, to remove the obstacles to a free interchange of broadcasts, namely, the jamming by the Russians of all our broadcasts to the U.S.S.R. The Russians have known for some time that they could have broadcasting facilities at sporting events in the United Kingdom if they would undertake not to jam the B.B.C. Russian commentaries upon them. The Soviet authorities have, however, not been prepared to make this reciprocal gesture.

For what reason was the broadcast of the football match between Wolverhampton Wanderers and the Russian Dynamos cancelled a few weeks ago? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that when Wolverhampton Wanderers were in Russia every facility was given to the B.B.C. to broadcast to England accounts of the matches which they played there? Is not the decision, taken at the last moment, both churlish and childish?

No, Sir, I think it is neither. It is a sensible decision, and the Russians will understand it perfectly well.

What action are the Government taking to ensure that when Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Krushchev pay their good-will visit to us next year the B.B.C. broadcasts of their speeches are not jammed by the Soviet authorities?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he has made in his discussions at Geneva regarding the revision of the rates of exchange for tourists visiting Communist countries.

During the Geneva Conference I represented to the Soviet Delegation that the present rate of exchange of the rouble constitutes a barrier not only to tourism but also to many other forms of contact with the Soviet people. Mr. Molotov rejected this representation, alleging that it was an attempt to intervene in Soviet internal affairs.

Did the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to Mr. Molotov at the time that the present rate of exchange means that the only people who can go to study Soviet affairs are the wicked capitalists—or the representatives of the capitalist Press—because they are the only people who can possibly go in the present circumstances?

I would not make quite so sweeping a statement or I might offend certain Members of the House. I did represent that it had the effect that no genuine tourists—people who have saved up their money to make their own little trips on their own—could possibly travel, but that everyone was selected and paid for by an institution of one kind or another.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the plan for a partial demilitarisation of areas each side of a partition line in Germany originally known as the Eden Plan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions took place on Her Majesty's Government's proposal of a demilitarised zone on either side of the frontier dividing West and East Germany at the Geneva Conference of Foreign Ministers; and with what result.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to create a demilitarised zone between East and West Germany.

At the July Conference of Heads of Government my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made two quite separate proposals at different stages of the discussions.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that if his answer means, quite bluntly, that these proposals are not shunted to some sub-committee, are not modified and are not being withdrawn but are still open for discussion as part of a general solution, it will give great satisfaction?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My reply meant just that. We still hope that, sooner or later, there will soon be some Russian acceptance in the spirit in which these proposals have been put forward.

Did not the Foreign Secretary put forward a different proposal for demilitarisation at the Geneva Conference—a proposal for demilitarisation in a different area—and are we now to understand from his reply that the Government still adhere to the proposal made by the Prime Minister in July? In view of his latest answer, is the Foreign Secretary prepared to revise his proposal for demilitarisation of the partitioning frontier in Germany?

Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, the hon. Gentleman has quite twisted the purport of my reply. If he will read it carefully, he will see that his suggestions are not correct.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether or not, in effect, the proposal which he made meant the creation of a demilitarised area between Russia and West Germany? If that is the case, would it not result in widening the existing gap between East and West Germany and, therefore, not harmonise with the stated view of Mr. Dulles, as expressed in today's Press, that we should continue to press for the reunification of East and West Germany?

No, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read carefully my reply. There were two quite separate proposals. One was for an experiment, a pilot scheme, as one might say, in the limitation, inspection and control of forces that might take place anywhere. It did not matter where it was, but simply that if we were to work these things we should get the teams practising, get to know each other and the kind of thing that they do. The other was a quite separate proposal, that if and when Russia agrees to the reunification of Germany, then along what is then the dividing line between a reunified Germany and the East there might be, among other methods of increasing security, a demilitarised zone or a special zone, in which specially reduced forces would exist or certain kinds of weapons would be ruled out. Both these schemes were put forward and one remains—the disarmament one—before the Disarmament Sub-Committee of the United Nations. The other never came to fruition because the Russians, on quite different grounds—on political and not on military grounds, because they were determined to hold on to the part of Germany which they had seized—refused seriously to consider the proposals that we made.

Is it not a fact that the first proposal was, in fact, mentioned at the summit Conference and not at the Geneva Conference? I am not quite clear what the reason for that is. Perhaps the Minister will explain that.

Yes, Sir. It was mentioned and we were prepared to discuss it, but we never discussed it in detail because the whole of the discussion on that item broke down so rapidly owing to the refusal of the Russians to deal with the question of control.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government proposed at Geneva that the ratification of any European security pact should be made conditional upon the entry of a reunified Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the entry into force of the security pact which he proposed at the Geneva Conference was made conditional upon the admission of a united Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The "Outline of Terms of Treaty of Assurance" put forward by the Western Powers at Geneva sets out the proposals by which the Western Powers sought to give the Soviet Union additional security in the event that a united Germany's free choice should be to join N.A.T.O. or the Western European Union. Clearly, if united Germany made a different choice, different arrangements would be needed.

Is it not a fact that in the original proposals supported by the Foreign Secretary, the conclusion of a security pact was made conditional on the agreement of a unified central Government to join N.A.T.O., and was this not a prejudging of the issue which was likely to provoke Soviet hostility?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has really twisted this matter in a most dangerous way, and I must refute what he says. What we said was, "We want a reunited Germany. You say that a reunited Germany might join N.A.T.O. All right then, we give you every possible military reassurance that we can think of. If, on the other hand, a reunited Germany joins the Warsaw Pact, it will not be we who have to guarantee Russia, but Russia who has to guarantee us."

Will the Minister explain the meaning of the statement in the draft proposals submitted by the Western Powers that the final stage would only enter into effect when a reunified Germany entered N.A.T.O. and Western European Union?

For the reason that I have said, we have offered them a treaty, some part of which would be applicable whatever might be the decision of Germany, and some part of which would only have any point in it if the reunited Germany joined the Western group and, therefore, perhaps, in the Russian eyes, made some additional security necessary. Therefore, it was very reasonable that some clauses should come into operation anyhow, and that the final clauses of security should only come into operation if needed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manchester Guardian, which is by no means unsympathetic to the Government's general policy in international relations, described this proposal as patently insincere? If the proposal seemed to the Manchester Guardian patently insincere might there not be some reason for it being regarded as suspect by the Soviet Union? Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why a demilitarised area dividing the frontiers in this way as a protection for one side or another would not be equally useful whichever side it eventually joined?

I think that the quotation from the Manchester Guardian is one I remember well. This matter was misunderstood by some of the Press. If the hon. Gentleman will read the later editions of the Manchester Guardian in the later days—the hon. Gentleman has only chosen to make the quotation which suited him, and I have many quotations which suit me—he will find that it was always perfectly well understood as the Conference proceeded. Here is the position: if the Germans wish to join the West we make special provision to protect Russia. If they do not, different provisions will be required. It is really not right that our Western position should be so misrepresented.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what provision is made for the education of children of persons employed at Her Majesty's Embassy to the Federal Republic of Germany.

These children have the use of the facilities provided by the British Forces Education Services in Germany.

Is it not a fact that next spring the Army intends to charge very high fees to all except Army parents who are sending their children to its school? Does he appreciate that that will put a very heavy burden on the parents of the children at the Embassy, and will he consult the Secretary of State for War to see if that plan can be stopped?

I will look into that, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these facilities, though admirable, are already overcrowded, and will he look into the possibility of extending them both for Forces and other children? It is very important.