asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to make it easier for British subjects who were born in countries such as India and Burma, when they were under the United Kingdom Government, to obtain passports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to simplify the present inconvenient formalities which British subjects who have been born in former parts of the Commonwealth and Empire are obliged to comply with before they can obtain passports.

Since the coming into force of the British Nationality Act, 1948, United Kingdom passports are issued to persons who are either citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or British subjects without the citizenship of any Commonwealth country, or British protected persons; and it is necessary to ascertain that an applicant for a passport does, in fact, possess one or other of these qualifications. Persons who are citizens of another Commonwealth country, except those who also possess United Kingdom citizenship, hold passports issued by the Commonwealth country concerned.

Persons born in India, Pakistan and Burma must produce the same documents necessary to establish their citizenship status as persons born in any other foreign or Commonwealth country. There are therefore no steps which my right hon. Friend can properly take, in view of existing legislation, to make the position easier.

Has my hon. Friend seen a letter which was published in The Timesrecently showing that a lady who had been born in Southern India at the time when it was under British rule had to produce not only her father's birth certificate but her husband's birth certificate as well, and that one of these at least was very difficult to obtain? Cannot he suggest some means by which documents which are very difficult to obtain, as those might be, can be avoided?

I did not see that letter, but I know that sometimes, with the best will in the world, there are difficulties. Where they can be avoided, they certainly will be.

Will my hon. Friend look into this again, as there are a number of Irish loyalists, whose fathers were in the I.C.S., who were born in India and are Southern Irish by one nationality and Indian by another but still are British; they are the most loyal subjects of the Crown in India and yet cannot get British passports?

I should like to think over that case, if I may.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the text of the Convention on Establishment, signed by the United Kingdom and other member countries of the Council of Europe in December, 1955; and when Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify this instrument, and by what process.

The United Kingdom has not yet signed this Convention, so these questions do not arise.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to take some steps to make sure that the Press Officer of the Council of Europe does disseminate correct information?

I was not aware that any incorrect information had been disseminated, but I will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total cost, including payments made in salaries, wages and allowances to British as well as foreign persons, in 1954 and in 1955, of Her Majesty's Embassies in Paris and Moscow, respectively.

The total cost falling on Foreign Office Votes in the financial years 1953–54 and 1954–55 respectively were, Paris £290,970 and £272,200, Moscow £310,670 and £297,020.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will approach the Israeli Government about the possibility of allowing us facilities for a military base at Haifa.

No, Sir.

Would not my right hon. hon. Friend agree that a base at Haifa made available to the signatories to the 1950 Tripartite Declaration would show both the Israelis and the Arabs that there would be effective action taken in the event of an act of aggression, and as such would be a very considerable contribution to the stability of the Middle East?

I always respect the opinions of my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I have to disagree with him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Israeli Government could not possibly make a suggestion of this kind for fear of a rebuff, almost everyone in Israel would welcome such a suggestion, were it made plain that we really intended to take action as a result of the Tripartite Declaration if there were an invasion of Israeli territory?

I do not necessarily dispute the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the feelings of the Israelis in this matter, but, as he will not have failed to notice, there are other countries and other peoples involved in the situation, and the proposal which he makes might very well make the situation more and not less difficult.

Would my right hon. Friend look at the point that if there were a base at Haifa, it could be presented to the Arab countries as an influence restraining Israel from aggression against her neighbours?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a British subject has to apply for a visa for each visit to Siam; that an American subject is not required to have a visa to enter Siam; and what representations have been made on the matter to secure not less favourable treatment for British subjects.

The Thai Government have intimated that they do not desire to enter into general visa abolition agreements with any country. The agreement with the United States, which dates back to 1925, was negotiated in special circumstances.

Why cannot we have equality with the Americans? Why is it that we are not as good as they are in this respect?

There is no question at all here of prestige: that does not enter into it. The special agreement with the Thais at the time was due to there being an enormous number of Americans and very few Thai consuls. That was behind this agreement originally.

Cannot we get a special agreement?

We do not need one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the need of British subjects to obtain a visa for each visit to Japan; if he is aware that an American subject can secure a visa to enter Japan for any number of visits; and what representations have been made to secure equality of treatment in this respect.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the Hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 30th November. The matter is still under discussion. It is complicated by the desire of the Japanese authorities to include certain Colonial Territories in any arrangement made.

Is it not the case that we helped to defeat Japan and that we shared responsibility for occupying that country? If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us why we cannot get equality with the Americans, can he tell us what the Americans have that we have not?

Errol Flynn.

I could think of an answer or two to the last supplementary question, but the matter is still under discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) on what date he received representations from the Government of Iraq about the presence in this country of I. S. Nuri, N. A. R. Hussain, and M. M. Mustafa; the nature of these representations; and what reply he made to them;

(2) on how many occasions in the last twelve months he has received representations from foreign Governments about the presence in the United Kingdom of citizens of the countries they govern; in how many cases the expulsion of such citizens from the United Kingdom was requested; and what action he took in each case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests he has received from the Government of Iraq during the past twelve months for the expulsion from this country of students of Iraqi nationality; and what action he has taken in each case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic communications he has received from foreign Governments or their representatives on the subject of foreign nationals permitted to study in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what date he received representations from the Iraqi Government about Iraqi students in the United Kingdom; and what reply he made.

My right hon. Friend is not prepared to disclose particulars of communications which are addressed to him in confidence by foreign Governments.

Is not this a most unsatisfactory situation? Did not the Home Secretary assure some hon. Members of this House that inquiries had been made about the possible danger to the lives and liberty of these students from Iraq who were being returned, and gave them an assurance that no such dangers existed? Are we to understand that the communication for the return, the expulsion from this country, of these students in the middle of their studies came from the Iraqi Government, and that his Department acted as the agent of that Government in these cases?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Foreign Office does act as a channel of communication in these matters, but the decisions are for the Home Secretary.

Is it not a shocking thing that the Foreign Office should refuse to give to the House information to which hon. Members are entitled in this matter, and make a secret about it? As the hon. Gentleman has virtually admitted that communications have been received from the Iraqi Government, will he now say why the British Government have departed from their long-established tradition of political liberty and passed on the message to the Home Office for the expulsion of these students?

No tradition has been departed from at all.

Is it not the case that the Home Secretary took his decision on these cases purely in the interests of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and would not it be as well if some hon. Gentlemen opposite did the same thing?

Will the Foreign Secretary point out to the Iraqi Government that if he, the Foreign Secretary, is to observe discretion in these matters, so might the Iraqi Government, and will they put a check on the boastful public speeches of the Iraqi Minister of Education, who announced what influence he has over the British Government in this matter?

That is not a responsibility of ours. That is another question.

Apart from the merits of this case, is it altogether desirable that Iraqi students, or students of any other nationality, can be expelled from this country simply because the country concerned expresses an opinion to that effect? Is it not a departure from the traditions of this country?

I think the best thing that I can do is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to an Answer given previously about Iraqi students by the Home Secretary when he said:

"…having satisfied myself that the continued presence of these students in this country was not in the public interest, I required them to leave."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January. 1956; Vol. 548. c. 13.]

In that event, may we be informed—after all, we are entitled to be so informed—of the Government's reason why these people were regarded as undesirable?

That is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman why he is refusing to tell the House the reason certain students have been expelled from this country?

The reason I cannot enter into that is because their expulsion is not the responsibility of the Foreign Office but that of the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Am I to understand that the Foreign Office do not know the reasons upon which the Home Secretary acted?

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that one Department cannot, and should not, answer for the responsibilities of another Department.

May I ask the Minister a question about his own responsibility? Will he tell the House the reason he refused to give any answer so far as the Iraqi Government are concerned? Surely he appreciates that all hon. Members will draw the conclusion from his reply that the Iraqi Government have in fact made representations to the British Government to have these students returned? If the hon. Gentleman has nothing to hide, why does he not tell us?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was contained in my original Answer. It would be contrary to the established practice.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent there are precedents for the action which has been taken?

Not without notice.

And not with notice, because there are not any.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations concerning the Icelandic fishing dispute.

The special group which was set up by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation to examine the Icelandic fisheries dispute met again from 24th to 26th January in Paris. Progress has been made and specific proposals for a settlement are being examined by Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government.

Is it a fact that agreement has been reached upon a four-mile limit round Iceland? lf so, what effect does my hon. Friend think that this will have upon negotiations with the Danish Government concerning a three-mile limit round the Faroes?

I am afraid that the terms of this proposal are still confidential, and those who are concerned are very anxious that they should not be revealed at this moment. Therefore, I do not think that I can go into the possible consequences of those terms.

In view of the fact that very considerable interests in our fishing ports are involved, can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication how these negotiations are expected to proceed? Is the group meeting again this week, for instance? Is it likely that there will be some kind of disclosure of the terms within a week or two, or is it expected to drag on for a long time?

I do not think that it will drag on for a long time. I hope not. No specific date has been fixed for the next meeting, but there will be one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government's programme of increasing activity in the Falkland Islands Dependencies is having the effect of restoring British sovereignty over those bases now in illegal occupation of the Argentine and Chilean Governments.

The recent establishment of the Royal Society's base in Coats Land, together with the Transantarctic Expedition's base in the Vahsel Bay area, brings the number of British bases to ten. Further British bases will be established this season. I should add that British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands Dependencies has never ceased to exist, and is unaffected by the illegal actions of the Argentine and Chilean Governments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Argentine and Chile base their claim in part upon the pact of inheritance of title from Spain, presumably under a treaty of 1494, whereby Spain and Portugal divided up the whole of the then undiscovered world between themselves? If that is so, can we expect further claims upon all territories discovered since 1494?

I should say that that is a hypothetical question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what positive action he proposes to take to prevent the spreading of false and seditious anti-British propaganda by Athens Radio.

I have been asked to reply.

I have no statement to make at present; but I must make it plain that Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to take any counter measures which they may consider necessary and justified to preserve Cypriot and British lives from outrages directly provoked by these broadcasts, which contain incitements without precedent between allies and for which it would be difficult to find a parallel in the history of broadcasting.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this incitement to murder British troops is quite without parallel in time of peace? Does he believe that this propaganda is having any effect upon the more irresponsible of the Greek-Cypriot youths? If so, out of fairness to our own soldiers, must not every step be taken to stop it? Would not he consider jamming Athens Radio in the last resort?

I agree with the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend in relation to the dreadful effects of these broadcasts—and fifteen British soldiers and seven policemen have already been killed in Cyprus. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only say that a decision has been taken to prepare to take any measure we may consider necessary, including jamming—but, of course, we hope that the discussions which are now going on in Cyprus may lead to the end of these broadcasts and, consequently, the need for such measures.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in deploring and condemning these broadcasts, but I should like to ask him two questions. First, have Her Majesty's Government taken this matter up with the Government of Greece? Greece is an ally, in N.A.T.O. Secondly, in view of the fact that we have all been encouraged by the resumed discussions, and in view of the important meeting which is to take place between Archbishop Makarios and the representatives of the Greek people this week, in the hope of reaching a settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from taking any action to prejudice the result for which we all hope?

In a matter of this kind the Government must retain their own freedom of action. Clearly, the Government are watching with the greatest care the talks which are going on in Cyprus. The right hon. Gentleman asked if we had told the Greek Government. We have made continuous representations to the Greek Government about these outrageous broadcasts, and we now feel that we must be free to act as we ourselves think necessary.

Is there not the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to which the Government can take this matter if their direct negotiations with the Greek Government have failed?

Our diplomatic experiences hitherto have made us a shade sceptical of approaches of that kind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, whatever the likely effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this measure locally, it raises immense wider implications? Have the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends really considered those implications? Have they consulted and informed the B.B.C, about this matter? Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that until the return of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary from the United States he will postpone the introduction of this ill-considered, ineffective and humiliating confession of failure and be persuaded, in the end, to change his mind?

We have taken all relevant considerations into mind. We are fully aware of the views of the Director-General of the B.B.C. We know that he is opposed to jamming in principle. In any considerations of the preparatory steps we are taking we have had to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages, and the decision to be prepared to take any necessary measures has been arrived at only in the light of all those considerations. It is, of course, a decision with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is fully associated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that incitement to murder and disorder over the air is as much a breach of the right of freedom of the air as the publication of pornography would be of the freedom of the Press?

I do indeed; and I would remind hon. Members—as we are quite properly conscious of the international aspect of these matters—that the Greek Government themselves signed a convention on the use of broadcasting under which they agreed that there would be no broadcasts to the detriment of international understanding, or involving the security of the territory of a high contracting Power.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one question with a view to clearing up the general question of principle? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that a Government has the right to jam broadcasts from a foreign country when those broadcasts are directed to inciting disaffection— [HON. MEMBERS: "Murder."]—murder, civil war and the subversion of the existing Government? Do those qualities in a broadcast entitle the country against whom the broadcast is directed to jam those broadcasts?

This would depend, of course, upon the circumstances of the case. I can certainly say that, in the eyes of most civilised people, the voice that gives the broadcast is as much an accessory to the murder as the hand that strikes the blow.

On a point of order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to say that he can give the House time to discuss this matter in its wider implications in the near future, may I give him notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House.

Later——

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely,

"The decision of Her Majesty's Government to authorise in certain circumstances the jaming of certain programmes broadcast by foreign wireless transmitters."

Having carefully studied the Standing Order in question, I would respectfully submit the following points for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I have first to show that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance. I think it must be clear to the House from the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies earlier this afternoon——

Perhaps the hon. Member will give his notice of Motion to me.

Yes, Sir, I will do so.

The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,

"The decision of Her Majesty's Government to authorise in certain circumstances the jaming of certain programmes broadcast by foreign wireless transmitters."

It is not necessary for me to pursue the merits of this Motion, because I understand that the Adjournment is about to be moved immediately before the Orders of the Day and a discussion on this matter would be as much in order on that Motion as it would be if the Motion were moved at seven o'clock.

Whilst thanking you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I had not altogether failed to anticipate, might I ask what situation would arise if I were to get up and make a speech about jamming of broadcasts and expect a reply from the Government Front Bench? May I ask you in what way it is possible for hon. Members of this House interested in this matter to find out whether and when the Government intend to give us adequate time to discuss this extremely serious and grave matter?

In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I am concerned only with the rules of order, and there cannot be two Motions for the Adjournment before the House. As to what would happen if the hon. Member were to raise this question on the Motion that is about to be moved, I think that possibly different views of his action might be taken in Wales and in Greece, but he would undoubtedly be in order in so doing.

Whilst thanking you for that further answer, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if I would be within the rules of order if I were to seek to move this Motion again, for example, tomorrow, when the Adjournment of the House is not to be moved from another quarter?

At least by tomorrow I should have had an opportunity of considering the question which the hon. Member has put to me. Of course I would have to take into account that, as I have told him, an opportunity does exist today by the rules of order.

May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is becoming very frequent nowadays for Government business to be discussed, not on a Motion by the Government, but on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House? That very often is for the general convenience of the House. The purpose of the Standing Order which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has in mind was, of course, to interrupt the agreed business of the House on a particular day, with your leave and with the support of the House, at a particular time and a particular period in order to discuss something else. In view of the frequency with which Government business is now discussed on a general Motion for the Adjournment of the House, would it not be convenient on a suitable occasion in suitable circumstances to allow this special Adjournment to be moved nevertheless?

That raises a large question. The purpose of the Standing Order is to provide an opportunity where none otherwise exists for the immediate discussion of some urgent matter of public importance, and it is always a bar to the application under the Standing Order if another opportunity does, in fact, exist. Beyond that there is nothing I can say. I apprehend that there is difficulty sometimes when there is a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, when, as I understand it, the main difficulty is that the extension of time which would operate under Standing Order No. 9 in the case of an ordinary Order of the Day does not apply; but I have no power to make any alterations to those matters.

Whilst obviously not wanting to pursue the matter further, I would draw your attention to the fact that whilst theoretically it is possible for my hon. Friend to raise this matter if he were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and he would not be out of order in talking about Cyprus or the particular question he has in mind, nevertheless for practical purposes when the two sides of the House have agreed to devote the Adjournment Motion to a particular subject, in spite of the theoretical possibility, there is no practical opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise any other matter.

I have known in the past when a debate has been arranged on a Motion for the Adjournment, and some event has supervened which, in the view of both sides of the House, demanded instant discussion, arrangements have been made to make use of the opportunity; but the opportunity does exist.

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? According to a report in the Daily Mailon Saturday last jamming of these broadcasts is already taking place, both jamming of broadcasts from Athens to Cyprus and from Cairo to Jordan. According to this newspaper report, that has only been possible because special sets have been made by the British Government which have been flown out there and, according to the Daily Mailcorrespondent, Mr. Noel Monks, he was present in Amman when the actual interference with the broadcasts was taking place. I have tried on several occasions during Question Time to get in a supplementary question to ask whether this was so. I tried to get in, as did my hon. Friend, on the question of Jordan, to ask whether jamming was part of our counter-propaganda work there, but received no reply. If we could get an answer as to whether the report is factual, this might govern the attitude of many of us on this side as to whether we wanted to make this a priority matter on the Adjournment today. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give facilities to the Minister either to accept or reject the report.

I am afraid I cannot intervene in that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress he has made towards securing financial compensation from the Government of Mexico in respect of the death of Mr. John Kealty, a British subject, who was murdered in Mexico in April, 1955, by an agent of the Mexican Government.

Her Majesty's Ambassador has been in constant touch with the Mexican authorities about this matter and has raised it with them twice during the present month, but they have not yet communicated their decison to him. I must point out that the hon. Member's description of Mr. Realty's assailant as" an agent of the Mexican Government" is incorrect. The man was in fact, a non-uniformed part-time" guardian of the peace" employed solely by the local district authorities.

While thanking my hon. Friend for having arranged to ship back this man's effects to his parents—they have now arrived, after considerable delay —may I ask him whether he is aware that these effects included a camera inside which was found a partly-exposed roll of film? It is now too late to develop this film, which might otherwise have constituted an important piece of evidence against this man's assailant. Why did no one either at the embassy or consulate take the trouble to look inside the camera and have the film developed on the spot or hand it over to the Mexican authorities for that purpose?

I will look into that point, if I may. I did not know about it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for some time now there has been no Mexican ambassador in London with whom this matter could be discussed, although there has been a very able charge d'affaires? Will my hon. Friend convey to the Mexican Government the opinion of all friends of their country that the sooner they appoint a fresh ambassador here the better it will be?

I am sure that the authorities concerned will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that the absence of an ambassador here has been in any way responsible for the slowness in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will approach the United States Government, with a view to making reciprocal arrangements to facilitate legal action against United States citizens who have deserted their dependants in this country, and of British citizens now in Britain who have similarly deserted their families in the United States.

No, Sir. According to the information available to me the problem of securing maintenance payments in cases of desertion does not call for special arrangements. In any case the difficulties of arranging and administering them would be immense.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are extremely distressing cases of women with young children who have been deserted and left penniless, with no practical enforceable legal remedy? Surely this state of affairs is completely undesirable to both Governments? Will the hon. Gentleman not look into it? If he has not had evidence of such cases sent to him, I shall be very pleased to send him evidence, and I hope that he will then look into it.

I would be grateful for any evidence that the hon. Gentleman cares to send. So far very few cases of desertion have been brought to our notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the terms of the communiqué of the North Atlantic Ministerial Council dated 16th December, he will make a statement as to the steps taken by the British representative to have measures of co-operation under Article 2 of the Treaty examined by the Permanent Council.

The Permanent Council has already begun its examination and is now considering proposals made by the British and other permanent representatives.

When can we have a statement either by the Council or by Her Majesty's Government on what questions are being considered?

A statement will be made as soon as the Council can reasonably make one. I do not think it would be helpful to make a statement now, while these discussions are just beginning.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commission appointed by the United Nations in December, 1950, to secure the repatriation of prisoners of war is still in being; and what progress has been made.

The Commission is still in being but has not met since September, 1954. Its efforts to collect information about prisoners still un-repatriated have been much hampered by the failure of the Soviet Union to cooperate. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will be aware, further efforts by the Governments concerned have led to increased repatriation.

Has not the Soviet Union refused throughout to give any facilities to this Commission? Will my hon. Friend consider making some protest to the United Nations at the Soviet attitude on this question of prisoners of war? The Soviet attempt to barter German bodies for political concessions is cynical and barbarous, even by Communist standards.

Yes, Sir, there will be great sympathy with what lies behind my hon. Friend's remarks. I do not want to say anything which will make future repatriation more difficult than it already is.

What is now the position about the elections in that part of the world, which was the outcome, or part of it, of some agreement designed to unify the country?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the latest estimate of the United Nations ad hocCommission on prisoners-of-war of the number of prisoners-of-war and deported civilians known to be detained in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The latest figures published by the Commission were contained in their report of September, 1954, which is in the Library of the House. The Commission has not met since. These figures were not the Commission's own estimates, but estimates made by Governments whose nationals were believed still to be in the Soviet Union.

Could the Government convey to Marshal Bulganin, as a practical, friendly suggestion on the subject of peace, that all war prisoners and civilians who have not been found guilty of civil crimes in Soviet Russia might be returned to their own country?

Yes, Sir. I think it would be very helpful indeed if what the right hon. Gentleman has said were followed up by the Russians. They know the view of Her Majesty's Government, which is exactly that described by the right hon. Gentleman.

Can the Minister say why it is that prisoners-of-war are still held in Soviet Russia while none is held in this country and none in the United States?

One can only suppose that the reason is that Russian Communist policy was to hold them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he intends to take to prevent the frequent and deliberate obstruction of the work of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet-Nam by the Communist authorities in Northern Viet-Nam; and if he has considered the statements of the chairman of the Canadian delegation to the International Commission on this subject.

Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government addressed a message to the other members' of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China and to the Supervisory Powers on 21st December, 1955. This message deplored obstruction of the activities of the International Commission and invited suggestions for improving the implementation of the Geneva Agreements. The replies to the message have not all been received as yet.

Will my hon. Friend take further steps to accelerate these replies? Does he not agree that the report of the chairman of the Canadian delegation is a really disgusting catalogue of Communist bad faith?

Yes, Sir, that is true. We certainly want these replies as quickly as those concerned can get them in.

Were there not also passages in the statement by the Canadian delegation indicating a good deal of non-co-operation from the non-Communist part of Viet-Nam as well?

Yes, that is true, but very much less than on the other side.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he intends to take on the situation disclosed by paragraph 5, page 19, of Command Paper No. 9654, that soldiers political cadres and local militia were frequently stationed in the houses of the Catholic population with instructions to prevent them from leaving their homes in Northern Viet-Nam in order to contact the investigating teams of the International Commission.

The situation to which my hon. Friend refers was that obtaining in the spring of 1955. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government were instrumental in extending by two months the time limit for the movement of refugees from North to South.

Can the Joint Under-Secretary say whether this Catholic problem has been settled to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, as in this country it still seems to arouse very widespread and, I think, well-founded doubts?

It would certainly not be accurate to say that we are satisfied with the way things are going there, but there are limits to what we can do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, pending the discovery of means of controlling nuclear weapons, he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure an early disarmament treaty that will include the reduction in manpower and conventional armaments to the levels proposed in the Anglo-French Memoranda, June, 1954, and March, 1955; and whether he will make a statement.

The levels for the reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments proposed in the Anglo-French Memorandum of 29th March, 1955, were put forward as an integral part of a comprehensive disarmament scheme providing for effective control over both conventional and nuclear weapons in a world in which political tension had been relaxed by the settlement of outstanding differences.

As I stated on 19th December, Her Majesty's Government still hope ultimately to achieve a comprehensive agreement embracing nuclear weapons. In the meantime, Her Majesty's Government intend to follow up the General Assembly Resolution of 16th December, which instructed the Disarmament Sub-Committee to give

"priority to early agreement on and implementation of all such measures of adequately safeguarded disarmament as are now feasible."

Is it not a fact that during the meetings of the Sub-Committee a wide area of agreement was reached between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers? Is it not, therefore, a reasonable expectation that a considerable measure of disarmament should be achieved because, in the words of the Minister himself, it is feasible in view of that wide measure of agreement?

I am very anxious that, at the next round of the Sub-Committee meetings, we should try to reach agreement to make a start with some partial disarmament. But, in present political circumstances in the world at large, it cannot go as far as the figures contained in the Anglo-French Memorandum—for reasons which will be obvious to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Nor, because we have not yet found the means of controlling nuclear disarmament, can it include nuclear disarmament. But nuclear disarmament, and a comprehensive scheme of disarmament embracing conventional and nuclear arms, remains the policy and purpose of Her Majesty's Government.

Does that reply mean that in the view of Her Majesty's Government there is little expectation of any agreement on conventional disarmament?

No, Sir. On the contrary, it means that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to make a start in a practical way with disarmament, and not to continue indefinitely over the next ten years, as we have over the last ten years, the academic arguments about the requirements and needs of a comprehensive disarmament scheme which is not possible in present political and scientific circumstances.

The Minister is now saying that one of the prior qualifications of disarmament is the relaxation of political tension, but is it not the case that the political tension is increased by the arms race, and how can we hope to end the political tension unless we do come to some agreement about the atomic arms race?

This is the sort of chicken-and-egg argument which is difficult to pursue at Question Time. What I am anxious to do, as I said just a moment ago, is to make a start, and that start itself could contribute to the reduction of political tension; but until political tension is reduced, we cannot go in for a comprehensive scheme of disarmament such as that envisaged in the Anglo-French plan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are still prepared to carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration of 1st December, 1943, and the Potsdam Declaration of 26th July, 1945, concerning the restoration to the Republic of China of Formosa and the Pescadores.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said on 1st February, 1955, the Cairo Declaration of 1943 contained merely a statement of common purpose. The problem of Formosa has since become an international problem in which a number of other nations are closely concerned.

The question of future sovereignty over Formosa was left undetermined by the Japanese Peace Treaty. The Potsdam Declaration of 1945 laid down as conditions for the Japanese that they should carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration. Japan complied with this by formally renouncing all title to Formosa in the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Did not the Cairo Declaration specifically state that Formosa was Chinese territory on the same footing as was Manchuria, and that we were pledged to restore it to the Republic of China in the same way as we were pledged to restore Manchuria? Does this reply mean that the right hon. Gentleman stands by the view which he expressed in New York in December, 1954, to the effect that we were bound to fight on the side of Chiang Kai-shek for Formosa if he became involved in war' with Communist China?

I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong on both counts. In the first place, I never said that we would be bound to fight on the side of Chiang Kai-shek. I said that we would support the United Nations, as we are pledged to do. Referring to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I may say that the Cairo Declaration spoke of Formosa having been seized by Japan and that Japan should hand it back. Under the Japanese Peace Treaty Japan has renounced all sovereignty and title to Formosa, but the question of sovereignty remains in abeyance.

Might not a helpful start be made with retrospective thinking if the Soviet Government would use their influence to have the armaments provisions of the peace treaties with the satellite nations of Europe implemented, whereas at present they are being grossly violated?

That is a wider question, but that does not mean that I do not agree with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official proposals have been made by the Turkish Government to increase the Turkish civilian population of Cyprus; and what was the reply of Her Majesty's Government.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "None." The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is the Minister aware that an article including the proposals and appearing in the Daily Telegraphhas been reprinted and circulated by the Turkish authorities? Will the Minister make it clear that Her Majesty's Government would give no support to these proposals, which would only be a potential source of further trouble?

As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we have no intention of supporting any proposal for an increase of the Turkish civilian population by other than natural means.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinion of the Daily Telegraphas a reliable newspaper is now hardly worth quoting?

That is not a matter involving the responsibility of the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the long lapse of time since the Courts of Justice in the Argentine took up the question of compensation for British holders in the Anglo-Argentine Tramways take-over, he will now consider approaching the Argentine Government as to whether a decision can be speeded up.

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Buenos Aires has been instructed to ask the new Argentine Government for their sympathetic consideration of this case with a view to settling the long drawn-out litigation which has occurred.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will give considerable satisfaction to a large number of very small people in this country who have been waiting for a long time and who hope that once this decision has been reached they will get further compensation?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the evidence of attempted bribery by Saudi Arabia of the people in the Buraimi area.

As my right hon. Friend's predecessor informed the hon. Member on 7th November, 1955, when the Ruler of Abu Dhabi and the Sultan of Muscat and Oman reasserted their rights in the Buraimi Oasis on 26th October last, many documents came to light which gave ample proof of the charges of corruption and bribery which had been brought against the Saudi authorities.

Can the Minister say whether this campaign was directed at the local people only, in the Buraimi area, or whether it was part of a widespread plan extending up and down the coast?

It was mainly directed to the subversion of the inhabitants in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation at Buraimi.

The situation at Buraimi remains completely quiet and normal and there have been no disturbances whatsoever since the Ruler of Abu Dhabi and the Sultan of Muscat and Oman reasserted their rights there on 26th October, 1955.

Is it Her Majesty's Government's intention now to open further negotiaions with the Saudi Arabian Government with a view to getting a general settlement and establishing a better relationship with that Government?

Negotiations or discussions with the Saudi Arabian Government are made somewhat difficult in view of the fact that the Saudi Arabian Ambassador has been removed from London and so far Her Majesty's Ambassador has not been received in Saudi Arabia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have yet given sympathetic examination, as recommended in the Drogheda Report, to the proposal to give financial assistance towards the establishment of a British school in the Lebanon.

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government propose to make a contribution towards the capital cost of this school. The approval of Parliament will be sought through a Supplementary Estimate to enable a first instalment of £25,000 to be available, as from 1st April next.

This will enable Her Majesty's Ambassador in Beirut to organise and launch an immediate appeal for the £250,000 needed to build, equip and endow a British boys' school in the Lebanon. Towards this total sum Her Majesty's Government are prepared to contribute a maximum of £120,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very welcome reply? Will he do all he can so that the work is carried forward as rapidly as possible?