asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments were represented at the Conference in Ghana to establish the Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa South of the Sahara; and what decisions were made.

The hon. Member will have seen the very full reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) on 10th March. The purpose of the meeting was to inaugurate the new Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa South of the Sahara, which the members of the Commission had decided to establish, and to mark their approval of its constitution.

Whilst welcoming the earlier reply and what the hon. Gentleman has now added, may I ask him how this co-operation for technical assistance is to be linked with the United Nations Agency of Technical Assistance and with the proposal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa?

There is no proposal to link it. It operates separately, but obviously some of the ground which it will cover will be the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government last supplied arms or aeroplanes to the Government of Cuba.

No arms or aeroplanes have been supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the Cuban Government since the war.

I am delighted to hear this news. As a matter of interest, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Cuba are behaving with the utmost ferocity towards decent freedom-loving people on the island, and will he agree that to such a Government we should not give approval, let alone encouragement?

Order.

I do not think that arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly condemning the Soviet Union's military suppression of the attempt by Hungary to regain her independence; by what majorities these Resolutions were passed; and to what extent they have now been complied with by the Soviet Government.

In all, the General Assembly of the United Nations has passed eleven Resolutions on Hungary. Of these, four directly condemned military intervention by the Soviet Union. I am arranging for the texts of these four Resolutions and for the figures regarding the voting on them to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These Resolutions were adopted by majorities ranging from forty-eight votes to eleven with sixteen abstentions, to sixty votes to ten with ten abstentions. The Soviet Government ignored all these Resolutions.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the tragedy of Hungary has been deepened since last summer by reason of the fact that the Soviet Government, so far from complying with the United Nations Resolutions, have viciously tightened the screw? Is my right hon. and gallant Friend further aware that many thousands of Hungarians have been deported, hanged or sent to prison or to forced labour since last summer?

I think that this Question and answer point to the fact that the General Assembly has no power to enforce its Resolutions and that this is an example of what may happen when a country refuses to abide by them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the election of a president of the United Arab Republic, it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford de jure recognition to the Republic.

No occasion has yet arisen calling for a formal decision by Her Majesty's Government to accord de jure recognition of the United Arab Republic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the withdrawal of Chinese Communist troops from North Korea and the proposal of the Peking Government for the holding of free elections in Korea under neutral supervision, he will make a statement on the policy which Her Majesty's Government will advise the United Nations to adopt in this regard.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy on the Chinese People's Government's official proposal for disengagement in North Korea.

I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) on 3rd March. Consideration of the Communist proposals is continuing in consultation with the other Governments concerned, but I am not at present in a position to add to that reply.

Is it the view of the Government that, in the event of free elections being held in Korea, they should be supervised by the United Nations observers?

That is a slightly different question, and I think it unwise to give in advance unilateral answers on matters needing consultation.

How long can the House anticipate it will be before the Government's consideration of this matters takes place? Some weeks have elapsed since the reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies). Is this not a unique opportunity whereby the United Nations can be drawn into consultation on the matter and secure a probable disengagement of forces which might lead to a useful pilot scheme?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, consultation is not a matter which one participant can control. It is a question of all being agreed. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is as the result of the refusal to abide by United Nations' decisions that many of these difficulties arise.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House through what agency the consultations are taking place? Is the Director-General of the United Nations involved in them?

That is another question, but I will endeavour to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, assented to the Commander-in-Chief of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, General Norstad, publicly demanding tactical nuclear weapons for Western Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, assented to the statement by General Norstad that the equipment of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons was indispensable.

The assent of Her Majesty's Government was not required.

Is it not a fact this statement of General Norstad cuts right across the Rapacki Plan which is a matter for consideration by the Summit Conference, and is it not highly undesirable that the N.A.T.O. Commander should be allowed publicly to take a line contrary in a matter for decision by Government members of N.A.T.O.?

The decisions of the N.A.T.O. Commander are subject, of course, to N.A.T.O. In a matter of this kind, it is quite impracticable to clear speeches of this kind before they are made.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that according to a recent poll eight out of 10 Germans, and surely a higher proportion of the British people, are against giving nuclear weapons to the German army, and will not this kill the Rapacki Plan and the hope of peace in Europe even before the Governments have a chance to discuss it?

Any discussions between the Supreme Commander and the Governments of N.A.T.O. are a matter between him and those Governments. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I think that has no bearing upon it at all.

The hon. Member will be aware that this speech by General Norstad did, in fact, alarm quite a number of people. Is N.A.T.O. an abstract organisation for which we have no governmental responsibility at all?

If the speech by General Norstad alarmed a number of people, it is not the first speech which has alarmed a large number of people.

Hear, hear.

The right hon. Gentleman knows to what I am referring. He knows also that decisions about speeches by the Supreme Commander can be reached by consultation within N.A.T.O., and if the matter arises I have no doubt it will be discussed.

Will the hon. Member inform the House that the Government will take the responsibility of raising the matter at N.A.T.O.? How can it be raised at N.A.T.O. if nobody raises it?

We are not nobody.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the decision of the State of Israel to release bank accounts to the value of 8 million dollars in favour of Arab refugees and their offer to the United Nations to pay compensation for abandoned lands as a contribution to Arab refugee settlement; whether the United Nations has yet conveyed this offer to any of the Arab countries; and with what result.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose through the United Nations that a fresh effort be made to re-settle the Palestinian refugees within the Iraq-Jordan confederation with the aid of United Nations and Jewish funds.

As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 27th November, 1957, we shall play our part as members of the United Nations in seeking a solution of the Palestine problem on a basis of justice; and a settlement of the refugees is an essential condition of a final settlement.

Yes, but will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question? What I wished to know was whether this gesture had been taken up with the United Nations and conveyed to the Arab countries. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered that part of the Question. Does he not regard this gesture as very welcome as possibly leading to a solution of one of the principal problems concerning the Middle East?

I certainly hope that this gesture may lead to the solving of this problem, but I think that the Arab countries and the United Nations are well aware of the information to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. This started in 1953, and the moneys concerned were funds which belonged to the refugees and had been blocked.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer my question? Is it quite explicit. What I want to know is whether the United Nations has taken any action in the matter and conveyed this gesture to the Arab countries. Will he answer that?

I am afraid I have not got that information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's Question will have drawn attention to it. As I said in my Answer, this has been going on since 1953. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had got some new information for us. If so, I shall be very glad to have it.

While appreciating that this matter has a long history, may I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not think that the situation has altered somewhat owing to the confederation of Iraq and Jordan, coupled with the present offer by the Israel Government making funds available? Is not this the moment, possibly, for some new effort to be made to encourage a trickle of refugees moving within the Confederation into the fertile crescent and thus lessen tension a little?

I think it is a little too early to judge this very recent development in the Middle East.

Is it not a fact that for some years a trickle has been going from Jordan to Iraq and that some resettlement has taken place in Iraq, and that perhaps it would be just as well if not too much attention were called to it because, if not, the trickle may grow into a flood?

That is what I was trying to imply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ascertain the willingness, or otherwise, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to join with the three major Western Powers in a guarantee of the present frontiers of the Middle East, including those of Israel, against any change by force.

It will be recalled that in a Note to the Soviet Government last year, Her Majesty's Government pointed out that the Arab-Israel dispute was the main focus of tension in the Middle East. The Soviet Government's reply did not accept this view and gave no indication of willingness to contribute towards reducing this cause of tension.

Is it not a fact that on at least two occasions through Mr. Khrushchev and through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Soviet Government did indicate their willingness to discuss this matter of frontiers and a standstill of arms in that area? Surely this is a matter we ought to pursue, or are we to understand that the Foreign Office is doing absolutely nothing in the matter?

I think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests must be looked at against the background of the Soviet reply of 3rd September last year, in which they said that the United Kingdom Government's view of the situation did not correspond with the facts and that the real basis for a peaceful settlement would be established if the three Western Powers ceased to use Israel as a tool for their colonialist policy.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of anxiety about certain statements which have been made recently by the Government in relation to the frontiers, and will he make it clear that, so far as frontiers are concerned, it would be absurd to ask Israel to do anything in the nature of giving up any portion of its territory which altogether is only a very small piece of land?

I think the Government have made their position quite clear on a number of occasions recently. I do not think it arises out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the course of negotiations on the agenda for a Summit Conference, he will press for the inclusion of the establishment of an area of disengagement in Central Europe; and if, as part of Her Majesty's Government's long-term policy of building the strength and effectiveness of the United Nations, he will press for the necessary inspection and control agency to be responsible directly to the United Nations and not to consist of contingents seconded from national forces and responsible primarily to national States.

The question of the agenda for a Summit Conference is one for negotiation. I do not think it would be useful to take up a public position in advance of such negotiations.

Surely the Minister of State can say whether, in addition to their general support of the United Nations, the Government are prepared to do something in particular, and is this not an area in which the United Nations' forces could operate not only for the advantage of Europe but the world generally? Surely we can have some idea of what the long-term policy of the Government is?

That may well be. I do not exclude the possibility, if any such scheme as the hon. Member suggests were agreed, that the United Nations would have a useful part to play; but I think it would be premature to go into that now.

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say meanwhile whether our experience of United Nations inspection and control teams in North Korea has been particularly encouraging?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official proposals he has received relating to the formation of a Mediterranean pact or other treaty arrangement with France concerning North Africa; and if he will give an assurance that this country will enter such an arrangement only on condition that it recognises the right of self-determination for Algeria.

The French Prime Minister recently stated that he would shortly make concrete proposals for a Western Mediterranean pact. Other proposals in the same field have of course also been made in the past by other countries in the area, notably Morocco and Tunisia. Her Majesty's Government have not yet received details of any of these proposals. When we do so we will of course give them the fullest consideration. Our concern will be to see whether these various ideas can be brought together and thus lead to an arrangement which will serve the interest of all the countries in the area. But I do not think it would be helpful to take up any hard and fast position on these various proposals until we know more about their details.

Whilst appreciating the point made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in view of the strong feelings on this subject, would he make it clear that Mr. Gaillard's proposal that this pact should include French Algeria is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?

I think we should wait until we hear the French Prime Minister's proposals in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will draw the policy of repression in Algeria to the notice of the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter as a circumstance tending to cause friction between France and her Arab neighbours; and if he will put on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly, under Article 10 of the Charter, the systematic violation of the French Army authorities in Algeria of Article 5 of the Declaration on Human Rights, approved by the General Assembly in 1948, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will, under Article 24 of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, draw the attention of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to the breach by the French military authorities in Algeria of Articles 3 and 15, paragraph (2), of this Convention, prohibiting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment even in times of war or public emergency, and request him to bring the matter to the notice of the European Commission on Human Rights.

No, Sir. It would not be appropriate to take such action.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at least make it clear that the Government no longer adopt the position they did when Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris on 14th July, 1946, sent a message to the French Government stating:

"We are on your side in Algeria. We ardently desire the success of your efforts in Algeria."

I think we should make it clear that the allegations which have received publicity recently relate to events which took place some time ago, and that the Commission set up by the French Government to investigate the allegations of torture has published its report. This shows that the French Government are taking the matter very seriously.

In view of the fact that a Convention on Human Rights has been adopted by the Council of Europe, is it not desirable that when such a convention is challenged by charges there should be an opportunity for those charges to be proved or disproved in the way proposed in these Questions?

I do not think I have anything to add to my reply, in which I said that the French Government appointed a commission and have published its report.

To keep the matter in proportion, is it not the case that the French authorities, far from condoning outrageous behaviour of the kind mentioned in the Questions, have convicted and punished 363 individuals, who have been condemned for behaviour of this kind?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Algerian refugee problem is being considered by the Anglo-American good offices committee now at work.

Our purpose in the good offices is to help the French and Tunisian Governments to come to an agreement on certain acute issues and to resume their direct negotiations. It is of course of the essence of the good offices procedure that the discussions should remain confidential.

Is it not a fact that 100,000 Algerian refugees are now in Tunisia, that recently they were coming over the frontier at the rate of 400 a day, that over 50 per cent. of them were children, and that the United Nations refugee workers have described these as the worst conditions they have ever come across? Will not the British Government say anything about this problem, which is at the centre of Franco-Tunisian difficulties at the moment?

I do not think this comes within the terms of reference of the good offices of which I have just told the House. I think I have myself answered a Question put by the hon. Gentleman on this subject. I believe he knows that the International Red Cross is at present organising the distribution of relief to Algerian refugees in Tunisia and that voluntary bodies in this country, such as the Save the Children Fund, are assisting the International Red Cross in this work.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take at the United Nations, as a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to raise the question of the violation of human rights by the French authorities in establishing a no-man's land in Algeria.

This question has already been drawn to the attention of the United Nations by means of a letter from the Tunisian representative dated 26th February and a reply from the French representative dated 5th March. Both of these letters have been circulated in the United Nations as Security Council documents.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not tell the House what is the view of the British Government in this matter, in that an area thirty miles wide and 250 miles long is to be cleared of all its inhabitants, who number 350,000 people, and that this is probably one of the greatest forced evictions of civil populations ever made? Will not the Government give some indication that they take this matter seriously?

The statements of the two representatives at the United Nations, to which I have just referred, give a very different picture of what has happened. The facts have not been established, and it would be unwise to place reliance on various reports that have been made public, some of which seem to have been considerably exaggerated.

If it is the fact that the French Government are proposing to clear a large number of people along the frontier, would the British Government make representations to the French Government that they should hold their hand in this matter until the good offices committee has done its work or some counter-proposals have arrived from President Bourguiba, which I think are expected?

I do not think this arises out of the Question, which refers to the good offices committee.

No, no——

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the unification of Germany must precede any disengagement or disarmament of East and West Germany.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government is that any measure of disengagement or disarmament must be considered in relation to the military and political circumstances in which it would take place, that is to say, whether it would increase or decrease security and stability. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there can be any lasting security in Europe so long as Germany remains divided.

Whilst appreciating what the Minister has said, has he noticed that the German Government themselves made a statement over the weekend saying that this is a matter which must be considered at any Summit Conference? Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have preliminary discussions with the German Government about this question, which seems to be an important preliminary to any meetings with the Russians?

Of course, there will be discussions amongst our allies about these matters.

Does the Minister really mean that if any prospect of either disengagement or disarmament presents itself, it is the policy of the Government to sacrifice that prospect in the interests of German reunification?

What I do mean to say is that, without defining exactly the disengagement or disarmament proposals envisaged, it is difficult to deal with this in question and answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has concerning the possibility of an out of court settlement for compensation for the shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways; and what intimation he has received of the extent to which the company would be prepared to accept this and to accept Her Majesty's Government's good offices to help bring it about.

The Argentine Government have not replied to the memorandum which the company submitted in February, 1957, stating its willingness to enter into negotiations for an out of court settlement. Her Majesty's Government have supported the representations made by the company and will continue to give all the assistance they reasonably can.

In view of the fact that there has been some misunderstanding in the Argentine as to whether the company was prepared to settle out of court, and in view of the fact that all through the year the company has been making it clear that it wants this to happen, will my hon. Friend realise how grateful the company will be for the Government's powerful support in clarifying the situation?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to limit the number of persons claiming diplomatic immunity in London.

Her Majesty's Government consider that the number of persons entitled to claim diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom must always be limited to those who are properly qualified by the nature of their functions. Due regard must be paid to the principles of international law and to the requirements of reciprocity in this matter. For these reasons, any unilateral and arbitrary limitation of the number of privileged persons would be out of the question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all sorts and conditions of people are now entitled to these diplomatic immunities and privileges? Does he know of the case at Bow Street last Thursday when a British chauffeur who had parked an American car for 75 minutes in a restricted area "got away with it"? Is not this business of diplomatic privilege tending to get haywire and out of hand?

It is possibly the interpretation of the situation by the hon. Gentleman which is getting a bit haywire. It is not the case that all sorts and conditions of people are entitled to claim diplomatic immunity. It is only those who come within the clear terms of reference to which I have referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread abuse of C.D. plates on motor cars? Is he aware that anybody can buy a C.D. plate—I or anybody else—and that the holder of such a plate is given preferential treatment by the police? I hope my hon. Friend will not say that this is a matter for the Minister of Transport. It is the business of the Foreign Office.

As a matter of fact, it is the business of the Home Office.

How many people are protected by diplomatic immunity in this country? Is the hon. Member aware that there is a developing public feeling to the effect that this is being overdone and that, as a result, some people can sail around and do what they like without regard to the provisions of British law? Ought not something to be done to limit the numbers of these extraordinarily privileged people?

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with experience and, I think, knows that the numbers are limited under the terms to which I have referred. I can give him quite shortly the numbers of the heads of foreign diplomatic Missions accredited to the Court of St. James' and their suites. There are 3,090, including 898 wives, while there are 2,633 Commonwealth representatives, including 869 wives. The arrangements are reciprocal and apply to our representatives in foreign countries.

In order to get the figures in some sort of proportion, will the hon Member consider telling the House the numbers in. say, New York and Paris and places like that?

I am prepared to give a very full reply on this subject, but not just now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he discussed the possibility of a Summit Conference when attending meetings in Manila, Philippines, recently, in connection with the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation; and whether he will make a statement on these discussions.

My right hon. and learned Friend took the opportunity to have informal discussions with Mr. Dulles and M. Pineau on preparations for a Summit Conference. In view of their confidential nature, he would not wish to say more than that he and his two colleagues found themselves in broad agreement.

Was it a confidential discussion? Has the Minister not seen reports in the Press of what is alleged to have taken place? Would it not be better for the Minister to give us at least some idea of whether Mr. Foster Dulles had it all his own way, or whether our own Foreign Secretary was able to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Foster Dulles?

I think the hon. Member had better rely on the official communiqué published after the conference.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what agreement with Mr. Dulles really means?

asked the Prime Minister to what extent the unusually large amount of fission products in the air over London on the 11th and 12th October last was attributable to the accident at Windscale on 10th October.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this unpleasant fact was omitted from the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 8th November and also from the more detailed White Paper which he issued on that day? Why do we have to wait until there is a conference of the Royal Society of Health for this information to be disclosed to the public for the first time by the scientific officer of the London County Council?

In fact, I answered a Question on this subject on 10th February to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in which I gave exactly similar information as that given to the hon. Member today. I have read the accounts of the meeting of the Royal Society of Health and of the scientists employed by the London County Council, and I have nothing to add to the information I gave either on 10th February or now.

asked the Prime Minister why he proposes to visit President Eisenhower.

I have been asked to reply.

As the right hon. Gentleman deputises so well for the Prime Minister, could not he persuade the Prime Minister to go to America a little earlier? Could not he advise the Prime Minister that there are 5 million unemployed in America and that he might help the President if he suggested that we have successfully solved our problem partially by having more trade with Russia and China? Could not he give that advice or information to help the American unemployment problem?

My general reply to the two parts of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that the Prime Minister knows very well how to mind his business and how to look after the business of the country.