asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British delegation at the Conference on the Sea at Geneva has put forward a proposal for a six-mile territorial limit for fisheries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the British proposal that the territorial water limit should be extended from three to six miles.

As the House will be aware, the Geneva Conference is deeply divided on the subject of territorial limits. It became clear at the Conference that there was no prospect whatever of the adoption of a three-mile limit. The purpose of the United Kingdom proposal of six miles was to secure a solution avoiding the serious damage to United Kingdom interests which would result from the widespread adoption of a twelve-mile limit.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he can assure the House that the Government will now do all they can to press the American proposal which allows our trawlers to fish in historic areas, as they have done for years past, and to oppose the Canadian proposal which is a twelve-mile limit in which no one is allowed to fish?

That is the position. Our delegate at Geneva is supporting the American compromise proposal.

May we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any unilateral variation by another Government of their present territorial water limits especially when there are established rights, such as fishing rights?

That is certainly the case. I should like to point out to the House that the fact that we have put forward a compromise, or that we support a compromise, does not mean at the end of the day, if that compromise is not adopted, that we cannot return to insisting on a three-mile limit.

When this Conference comes to a conclusion, will the Government pay particular attention to the need for informing all sections of the industry and the public here about precisely what the position is? The Minister will be aware that there is very deep feeling on this matter, particularly in the fishing ports, and many sections of the industry might well feel like taking action on their own, which may or may not be wise. They require sound information.

I will certainly bear that in mind.

Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in the industry and in other quarters that the Government have been a little hasty in proposing this six-mile limit before exhausting all possibilities of retaining the status quo?

I think that would be a very inaccurate interpretation of events. We really stuck to the three-mile limit as long as we possibly could, and it was only when it was perfectly clear that we could not get sufficient support for that arrangement that we tried for a compromise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how much territory he estimates Britain will acquire under the sea, if the articles on the Continental Shelf, proposed by the United Nations International Law Commission for the present Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva are adopted;

(2) in view of the British amendment to the articles on the Continental Shelf, prepared by the International Law Commission at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, what plans have been prepared for proclaiming the relevant areas of the Continental Shelf to be Crown Lands; and what proposals have been studied for their exploitation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is his intention to claim exclusive use of the Continental Shelf in the North Sea and English Channel as proposed in Article 68 of the International Law Commission Report at the Geneva Conference, and to lease the oil-drilling rights in such greatly increased British submarine territory; and whether he is satisfied that this does not conflict with the freedom of the seas to shipping in those waters above the Continental Shelf.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the area of seabed over which Great Britain will acquire exclusive rights under the articles dealing with the Continental Shelf at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea; and what authority will be responsible for its development, under the plans which have been drawn up.

The embodiment of the Geneva Articles in an International Convention would not lead to the acquisition of territory under the sea by the United Kingdom or any other State. The sovereign rights of the coastal State over the Continental Shelf will be limited to those required for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the Shelf. There would be no necessity to "claim" exclusive rights; the rights would be recognised in the Convention.

The rights may be exercised on the Shelf to a depth of 200 metres, or beyond that depth to where the depth of the waters immediately above the Shelf admits of exploitation. The extent is thus not definite. Further, the sharing of the Shelf with neighbouring states would have to be settled by agreement. It is therefore not possible to say over what area of the seabed the United Kingdom would be able to exercise rights.

The draft Articles specifically provide that the rights in the Continental Shelf do not affect the legal status of the waters immediately above the Shelf as high seas. In addition., the exercise of the rights must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea.

I understand that, with the possible exception of the Channel Tunnel, the development of the Continental Shelf of the United Kingdom is not a burning question, and so far as I am aware no plans have yet been made to deal with it.

I should like to ask the Minister of State about this because there are not only our claims but those of France in the English Channel. I understand that a document, No. 21, has been agreed, as to the surroundings of one mile distance from any such drilling operation. It is perfectly clear that the English Channel could and might be completely blocked to shipping by reason of the exploitation of the Continental Shelf in this way. Is not it much better that the Continental Shelf should be free to shipping rather than be exploited in this way?

I think it will be free to shipping. My hon. Friend has another Question on the Paper on this point, and I think it will be easier to deal with the matter when we reach that Question.

In view of the great difficulty of getting agreement on this problem, would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching it from the other end; that is to say, seeing if it is possible to get agreement on the ownership of the high seas outside the territorial limits? Obviously, the United Nations ought to own it and licence it out to the nations. Once that were known, it would be very much easier then to get agreement on the limits of national territorial waters. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered approaching it from the opposite side?

We may consider that, but the Conference has been sitting for some time, and I think that on this aspect of the problem there is a possibility of agreement between the countries.

Will my right hon. Friend consider, too, the claims of the Colonial Commonwealth in this matter and their continental shelves?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the growing anxiety of the British fishing industry on the proposals, now before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea now meeting at Geneva, to extend the limits of territorial waters beyond the present boundaries, with the result that British vessels would be debarred from fishing in these waters, and that these proposals, if carried into effect, would have adverse effects upon the trawling industry, especially in northern waters; and if he will instruct the British representatives at the Conference to oppose strongly any extension of the present limits.

Yes, Sir. I should have thought that the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend in Geneva would have made it abundantly clear that Her Majesty's Government share the industry's concern, and with this in mind they have been trying to promote a generally acceptable solution at the Conference.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the effect of the extension of these fishing limits upon the tonnage and earning capacity of the fishing fleets? Was that taken into consideration when we made the concession?

That was taken into consideration. I understand that the damage that might be done by the extension of territorial fishing waters to six miles would be nothing like as severe as the damage which would be done if they were extended to twelve miles, which is the danger.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent, at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Anglo-Dutch amendment to the proposed articles on the Continental Shelf whereby states shall have the right to tunnel in the seabed, implies the construction of artificial islands from which those tunnels may be entered in extraterritorial waters.

The amendment referred to by my hon. Friend was intended to refer to tunnelling under the sea from terra firma, and does not imply the construction of artificial islands.

In this whole question of the seabed and Continental Shelf, has consideration been given to getting the United Nations, or some other non-national body, to control these areas? Is not it deplorable that there should be an expansion of nationalism into areas in which nationalism has never been recognised? Is not that the fundamental problem?

No. In the question my hon. Friend has raised, it is a matter of tunnelling, for instance in the search for coal under the sea. It was thought unreasonable that one should have to stop tunnelling for coal under the sea because one had reached the territorial limits of the sea. It is that with which this amendment is dealing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which States have notified him that they have already made claims to the Continental Shelf; and how many of them have notified him that they have started to exploit their claims.

Other States are under no obligation to notify Her Majesty's Government of their claims, and a list of notifications would have no special significance. However, according to the Conference Secretariat at Geneva, twenty-four States have claimed rights in the Continental Shelf. Among them is the United Kingdom, in respect of a number of territories for the international relations of which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. I do not know how many States have begun to exploit their Continental Shelf.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which nation has the right to exploit the Dogger Bank under the proposals at present being discussed at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea.

If my hon. Friend is thinking of the fish which inhabit the waters over the Dogger Bank, these waters are part of the high seas, in which the nationals of all States have the right to fish. If my hon. Friend is referring to the Continental Shelf, the Dogger Bank is part of the Continental Shelf of Western Europe. If the States of Western Europe become parties to an international Convention incorporating the Geneva draft Articles, then one or more of them will be entitled to exploit the seabed of the Dogger Bank. Which States would be entitled to do so might have to be the subject of international agreement. In the absence of agreement and unless another boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the boundary will he the median line between the States concerned.

When my right hon. Friend comes to discuss the Continental Shelf in relation to the Dogger Bank, will he make certain that, in the event of an attempt being made to extract oil from under the Dogger Bank, there is no danger of pollution of the water, to the detriment of our already harassed fishing industry.

That seems a very far cry. I have no knowledge of any idea about trying to exploit oil under the Dogger Bank.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the additional papers and documents containing extracts from the original proceedings, bills of indictment and personnel files, together with certain photostatic copies showing details of the crimes committed by Hitler's judges, who have been reappointed to office either as judges or public prosecutors in West Germany; whether he will ask the Bonn Government to include an answer to these charges and allegations in the investigations they are now conducting; and when he expects to receive the results of this investigation.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is Yes, Sir. As regards the remainder of his Question, I am making further inquiries.

Yes, but if the Secretary of State has seen these photostatic copies of the original documents, proving that these men were former SS leaders and that they are now back in their jobs, he will know all this evidence is available and that it should not have taken the West German Government from last May until now to make the investigation. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when he expects to get the result of this investigation, which has been proceeding since May of last year?

I think one has to draw a distinction between allegations—and these are mainly allegations, which come from the Communist authorities in Eastern Germany—and proven facts. I think the right people to investigate these are the German Government, with whom we have been in touch about them for some time.

When does the Secretary of State expect a reply?

Mr. Reeves—Question No. 4.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that this matter has been going on for twelve months, I beg to give notice that as it is very unsatisfactory I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the formation of a new Government in Saudi Arabia with the appointment of Prince Feisal to direct foreign policy, he will take steps to open discussions with that Government for the solution of outstanding differences with this country, such as the Buraimi oasis and other questions.

Her Majesty's Government would welcome the restoration of the traditional friendly relations between the two countries, and they have for some time been in communication with the Saudi Arabian Government with this end in view.

Is not it a fact that the policy of the present Saudi Arabian Government is not less friendly to this country than when it was directed directly by the King?

We have no reason to believe that there has been any change.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Buraimi question is in any way under negotiation? I seem to remember that we were told that there were discussions at one time or that the Saudi Arabians were seeking discussions. Is this a matter of present discussion?

Our position is that problems like that of the Buraimi Oasis would be much better handled if we could restore diplomatic relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the treaties governing relations between Great Britain and the various States in the Persian Gulf and if he will make a statement.

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question I would say is in general, Yes, Sir. The question of a statement does not therefore arise.

If my right hon. and learned Friend is only in general satisfied, what is he doing to remove the remaining dissatisfaction which, one deduces, is yet in his mind? Would not it be a good thing to conduct a review of all our treaty relationships with all of the States in the Middle East? Many of the treaties are well out of date.

That is exactly the kind of review which is being undertaken in certain cases, but I think it would be most unwise of me to particularise at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further discussions are taking place with foreign Governments over the future of Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with Greece and Turkey regarding the future of Cyprus.

I cannot yet add anything to the Answer which I gave on 2nd April to the hon. Members for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger).

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has now arrived when this matter should be returned completely to the Colonial Office?

I thought it was common ground in all quarters of the House, even my hon. Friend's quarter, that there were certain foreign countries involved in this matter, Greece and Turkey. Therefore, it cannot altogether be regarded as a colonial problem.

When are we likely to have a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the progress of the negotiations? With whom are they taking place at the moment, and in what venue?

I realise that in this matter the Government have received a great deal of tolerance and patience from both sides of the House, but there are certain factors, which are well known—I do not want to mention them today unless I have to—which do affect the timing of any statement. Therefore, I must ask the House still to be patient for a little time.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give no idea at all to the House as to when he will feel himself in a position to make a statement?

I think that certain statements have been made publicly which will refer to one of the matters which I have in mind. I would rather not add to them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the information I have is that there have been no talks with Greece since the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited Athens, and that there have been no talks with the Turks since the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in Ankara? If this is true, does not it disclose a monstrous situation and is not it a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have been misleading the House?

What the hon. Gentleman said is not true. He knows as well as I do that shortly after I made my last statement to the House the Greek Government fell.

In view of that juxtaposition, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to make a statement about the Soviet Government?

However, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that at least one contribution which could be made towards the pacification of the island and towards the prevention of a recurrence of violence would be the feeling there that the House of Commons was taking possession of the problem rather than neglecting it? Is not it therefore desirable to expedite a statement as much as possible?

In regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I was not quite certain whether the wish was father to the thought. Perhaps I should say that the Greek Government fell on the issue of electoral reform.

I entirely agree that it is desirable that the statement should be made as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals were put before the Greek and Turkish Governments in January in connection with the Cyprus problem; and in what way the proposals were unacceptable to the Governments concerned.

As I explained in answer to earlier questions, I cannot add anything to my statement to the House on 18th February.

If the Secretary of State is satisfied that these were reasonable proposals, why has he been so reluctant to reveal any details whatever about them? Is he aware that the Government have got themselves into the position of now being regarded as accepting a Turkish right of veto on any solution?

As I have pointed out, shortly after I made my statement the Greek Government fell, and certain constitutional processes have been taking place. It would be most unwise at this moment to launch any proposal which might have any chance of success.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his forthcoming statement, will he tell us what Her Majesty's Government's proposals were?

I certainly think that when the forthcoming statement upon Cyprus is made it will be right for the House to be told the various stages which have been gone through.

Do I take the Foreign Secretary's answer to mean that he will tell us what the proposals were in January? Is not it most desirable that they should be published as the Government in the end have to settle with the Cypriots and Parliament must ratify what they do?

What I think the right hon. Gentleman must do is to wait until the statement is made. If he then does not think it is adequate, he can criticise it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the French Government in the matter of a recent case, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth, so as to ensure as far as is practicable that the levying of summary fines for minor infringements of immigration regulations on young British subjects returning to the United Kingdom from French educational establishments, with the searching of handbags for currency to pay such fines, shall not take place without proper reference to the French educational establishments concerned with whom lies the primary responsibility, and shall be without hindrance to the return journeys of such young British subjects.

My right hon. and learned Friend cannot undertake to do what the hon. Member requests. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers the person concerned was not a minor under French law and was, therefore, responsible for her actions.

While one does not want to over-emphasise this sort of thing, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have tried to get this matter rectified through the French Consular-General in London, without success; that this young woman's handbag was ransacked on the allegation that she was carrying contraband currency; and that she was otherwise badly treated in front of witnesses, and her journey impeded? Was not the primary responsibility that of the French education authorities and have we not a duty to try to protect young persons travelling in Europe?

It is not correct to say that the prime responsibility was that of the French education authorities. If the young lady was of age, the prime responsibility rested on her, but I agree that it would be reasonable for educational establishments in France to take precautions to see that their students are correctly informed about matters of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT relevant extracts from the international undertakings of the Soviet Union which pledged that country to respect the independence of European countries, at present under Soviet domination or occupied by the Soviet Union, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

I will, with permission, circulate extracts from the relevant Agreements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is not it very important to contrast the crystal-clear legal and moral obligation of the Soviet Union in these matters with the recent very disheartening and cynical statement by Mr. Khrushchev in Hungary to the effect that the future of these countries was no business of the United Nations?

I think that that may well be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in which foreign countries British Armed Forces are stationed; and if he will make a statement of Government policy on this matter.

British Armed Forces are stationed in Germany and Libya with the agreement of the Governments concerned and in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's international obligations.

Is not the Soviet Union constantly asking for the liquidation of foreign military bases, and is not it clear from that reply that where British Armed Forces are stationed in foreign countries it is invariably at the request of the independent Governments of those countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Suez and Cyprus?"]—whereas more than half a million Soviet troops are stationed in the countries of East and Central Europe against the will of the people?

I think that that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Aden-Yemen border, following the recent British note of protest to the Government of the Yemen.

On numerous occasions in the last few months Yemeni forces have violated the Aden Protectorate frontier, have attacked our forts and members of the security forces, and have fired heavy machine-guns, mortars and artillery across the border. I have protested strongly to the Yemeni Government. These attacks have also been brought to the attention of the United Nations in two letters dated 6th March and 17th April addressed to the Secretary General for the information of the Security Council. Our forces have taken measures necessary to defend themselves when they have been attacked.

Why cannot the Government propose the appointment of a United Nations commission to demarcate the Yemen-Aden frontier, and also the appointment of United Nations observers on the frontier to check possible border aggression? Is it not better to take action before trouble, rather than after it?

I have nothing to add today to the Answers I have given on the subject before, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on 17th April we caused a statement on the latest state of affairs to be addressed to the Secretary General of the Security Council.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept a United Nations commission? Is not this an absolutely vital point?

Whether the time is ripe and whether the procedures of the United Nations are most appropriate for dealing with this matter are subjects which must be considered. As I have said before, this is a matter which we have under consideration.

Is not this a matter in which there has been firing between two members of the United Nations over a long period of time? Is it not now time that we took our responsibilities under the Charter seriously and laid the matter properly before the United Nations?

I certainly think that this is a matter which requires consideration. The point is, I believe, that the United Nations should be used as an instrument of reconciliation. The fact of the matter is that in certain places the frontier is not demarcated. There are certain clear treaty rights. For the moment, I must leave the position as I have stated it.

Will the Foreign Secretary clear up this point? Do I understand him to say that the possibility of stationing United Nations observers on the frontier has not been ruled out by Her Majesty's Government?

Certainly not, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has made to Allied Governments for a zone of limited armaments in Central Europe.

We are exchanging views with our Allies on the subjects which are likely to be dealt with at a Summit Conference. This exchange of views must be confidential.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Soviet Government have already published detailed proposals for arms limitation in Central Europe and certain Allied Governments have already tried to prejudice the decision of the possible Summit Conference against those proposals? Is not it highly desirable that if Her Majesty's Government have their own proposals in this field they should be published so that the maximum support of world opinion may be gained for them if they deserve it?

As to the Soviet Government publishing their proposals, they haw: not quite the same obligations to consult their Allies as we have. So far as we are concerned, I think the first step is to try to get the broadest possible agreement among our Allies before we publish our proposals.

As that is an exceedingly desirable objective, is it not, therefore, obviously undesirable that any of our Allies should publish any comments hostile to those proposals while discussions are continuing? Is not there an obligation to secrecy, not to be hostile, as well as not to publish positive proposals?

I think I should be wiser to confine—[Interruption.]

I am sure that, in the course of answering the right hon. Gentleman, I may be allowed to say how extremely glad we are in all quarters of the House to see back with us my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who has just entered the Chamber.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think I should be wiser to confine myself to the proposition that I think it is better to try to secure agreement confidentially and in secret before pronouncements are made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made in connection with the talks now proceeding in Moscow on matters pertaining to the arrangements for a future Summit Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage has been reached in the discussions between the British ambassador at Moscow and the Soviet Government relating to the Summit Conference.

So far, Mr. Gromyko has had one talk with each of the three Western ambassadors. He is at present unwilling to see them together. We are discussing with the United States and French Governments how best to deal with this.

While it may seem rather ridiculous on the part of the Soviet Government to adopt the attitude of seeing each one individually, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what objections there really are to Her Majesty's Government agreeing to that step? If Press reports are true that the Soviet Government said that they will see the ambassadors of the three Western Powers together if they agree to the ambassadors of Czechoslovakia and Poland being in with them, cannot we agree to that suggestion?

That suggestion has not been put to us. I should have thought it was obvious that it was unsatisfactory, time-wasting and likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion to see each of the three ambassadors separately.

Did not Great Britain and the United States suggest to the Soviet Union that the preparatory talks should take place through normal diplomatic channels, and is not this a normal diplomatic channel? Is not it rather an abnormal diplomatic channel for three Governments to concert together beforehand and then meet the representative of the fourth Government? What is proposed is the normal diplomatic procedure. What objection has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to it? If it is the case that the Soviet Government wish to be accompanied in any subsequent discussion by ambassadors belonging to other countries, what conceivable objection could we have to that procedure?

I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman endorse so firmly the position of the Soviet Government in this matter. The last Summit Conference took place between the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and France, and I should have thought that a very reasonable way to start the preparations for the next Summit Conference, without prejudice as to its exact constitution, would be for those four States to meet together to discuss arrangements.

What objection can there be to any hon. Member supporting a view which is put forward by the Soviet Union if he thinks that the Soviet Union is right? We are not dealing at the moment with the Summit Conference; we are dealing with preparatory talks. Is not it a fact that the Soviet Union invited the Western Powers to a Summit Conference? Is it not also a fact that we responded by saying that we thought that the Summit Conference should first be prepared in the normal diplomatic way? Is not this the normal diplomatic way? What conceivable objection can the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to it—unless he wants to have an advantage that the Soviet Union itself does not possess?

I was not objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's agreeing with the Soviet Union; I was only expressing my surprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I should have thought that if we really wanted to get a worth-while series of summit talks going as speedily as possible we ought to do it with the four Governments discussing these preparations together.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if we progress at this rate, before the Summit Conference takes place we might find ourselves at war with Monaco? Seriously, will not he accept this proposition, rather than get bogged down with a lot of sticky diplomatic preliminaries? It would be much better for the Prime Minister to spend two or three days in Moscow with Mr. Khrushchev in order to clear the decks and so ensure that the Summit Conference is held within our lifetime.

I think that much the best way to avoid getting bogged down with diplomatic preliminaries is for this meeting to take place as quickly as possible on a four-Power basis.

Should any hon. Member be surprised when fellow-travellers agree with the Soviet Union?

Will the hon. and gallant Member he good enough to indicate to whom he is referring?

Answer.

Order. I am sorry that this matter has degenerated into a personal dispute. I think that the information which the House wants could be elicited without making injurious reflections upon other hon. Members. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) meant anything injurious by his reference to the right hon. Gentleman, he ought to withdraw it.

Withdraw.

I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order. It is my duty, and the duty of all hon. Members, to defend the reputation of any hon. Member in this House, on whatever side he may sit. Would not it be the most honourable course for the hon. and gallant Member to indicate the person to whom he was referring?

Order. We cannot spend more time on this.

Further to that point of order. It is surely a highly offensive remark to state that any Member of this House is a fellow-traveller. With all respect, Sir, you yourself have said that it is an injurious remark. Cannot you bring the hyenas on the other side to order?

I have frequently expressed the opinion that injurious epithets are often applied to a number of people—members of opposite parties, and so on—and it is only when they become particularised that I am called upon to interfere. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford has said that he did not refer to the right hon. Gentleman. We do not know whom he meant. We must take his remark as one of the general recriminations which, unfortunately, are inseparable from party warfare.

Are we to take it that this is simply part of the usual Conservative tactic of impugning the patriotism of its opponents when it has a bad case?

That is not a matter for me. Hon. Members can form their own opinions.

Further to that point of order. Did I understand you aright, Mr. Speaker, when you said that the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was an injurious one, and if made against the right hon. Gentleman should have been withdrawn? In view of the fact that only two hon. Members and one right hon. Member rose on this side of the House, may I assume that the injurious remark was made against my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) or myself? If that is the case, may I ask you to ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his remark as far as I am concerned?

There is no necessity for the hon. Member to identify himself as the object of the remark. I would ask the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to ask Question No. 28, so that we can get on.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I would point out that this House has a reputation, whereby Mr. Speaker protects all hon. Members on both sides of the House. A moment ago you said that a remark that was made against a right hon. Gentleman was injurious and should be withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford made it only with regard to three possible Members who rose to their feet. If it should have been withdrawn against the right hon. Gentleman——

Order. The hon. Member is arguing against my Ruling. There were a number of hon. Members in the House who cheered the remarks about the point at issue—the question whether the ambassadors should meet separately or together. The hon. Member need not make himself the target for these remarks. I protect hon. Members when they are personally attacked, but there has been no attack in this case beyond the ordinary course of party warfare. We need not be too thin-skinned about it. Mr. Lewis. Question No. 28.

I am not too thin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—too thin-skinned. May I repeat that? As anyone can see, I am not too thin, neither am I too thin-skinned. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not worried about what an hon. Member or a right hon. Member may or may not say. What I am worried about is that right hon. Gentlemen would appear to get special treatment with regard to the withdrawal of a remark, as against ordinary hon. Members. It is from that point of view that I feel the hon. and gallant Member ought to withdraw the remark.

We must get on. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) took the remark as referring to himself. That is why, when the subject was still possibly identifiable, I intervened. But the hon. and gallant Member has made it quite clear that he was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.

Who was it?

I have no idea to whom he was referring. I must ask the hon. Member to ask Question No. 28, or I shall call the next Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will insist, in the preparatory negotiations, that the agenda of the Summit Conference must be considered with the obligations of the Charter, notably Article 2, paragraph 7, forbidding interference in the internal affairs of members of the United Nations, and Article 103, which declares that treaty obligations which conflict with those of the Charter are not binding on members of the United Nations.

In these preparatory negotiations we shall certainly have regard to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he make it clear that this means that any attempt at interfering in the internal affairs of certain Eastern States under the Yalta Agreement would be contrary to Articles 2 and 103 of the Charter?

I have nothing to add to my original Answer, except to record my pleasure at the support of the hon. Gentleman for Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will urge at the Copenhagen Foreign Ministers' Conference that, in order to make agreement at the summit talks possible, the Western Powers should now drop their demand that United Germany must be free to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and instead signify their agreement to some plan for unifying Germany within an all-European treaty and the United Nations, but outside the rival alliances, with prohibition of nuclear weapons in, and withdrawal of foreign forces from, the territories of Germany, Poland and Hungary, accompanied by appropriate forms of supervision.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that the Government cling to their proposal that a united Germany should be free to enter N.A.T.O.? Does not the Foreign Secretary recognise that, by clinging to that policy they will make themselves responsible for wrecking the summit talks before they have started?

What my Answer means is that Her Majesty's Government do not believe in putting forward proposals which they believe would not add to the security of Europe.

Would not it be desirable, also, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not commit himself to statements that might inhibit a settlement in Europe?

I do not think that I have committed myself to any statement which might inhibit a settlement.

Is not it a fact that if a statement is made that Western Germany, or a united Germany, must be free to enter into any foreign alliances, this in itself would be an inhibition on any policy of disengagement, including Germany, in Europe? Is not it undesirable to lay that down beforehand as a pre-condition of the conference?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Question and my Answer, he will see that I have not done so. There is no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if he took up any other position he would, in fact, be committing this country to going against Article 103 of the United Nations Charter regarding interfering with the freedom of a sovereign Government to decide its own affairs?

indicated assent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference of Foreign Ministers, oppose General Norstad's demand that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's ground forces be raised from 15 to 30 divisions and that Western Germany should be granted nuclear weapons.

I do not understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question. General Norstad's estimate of his requirements for ground forces has not been increased lately.

In answer to the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister of State on 21st April.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that General Norstad has publicly stated that N.A.T.O. ground forces should be raised to 30 divisions from the existing 15? Will he make it clear that, on grounds of expense, if for no other reason, the Government will not accept that? Furthermore, will not the granting of nuclear weapons to Germany now prejudice summit talks and make negotiation difficult?

There has been no change in General Norstad's requirements. Regarding the question of nuclear weapons for Germany, I advise the hon. Member to study carefully the Answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May, I shall call attention to working conditions on the railways, and move a Resolution in very similar terms to that which has been on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends for a number of weeks.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May. I shall call attention to constitutional development within the Commonwealth and to the desirability or not of a Commonwealth Cabinet Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, and other organisations, and move Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May, I shall call attention