asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he estimates the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation department at Paris concerned with air operations is overstaffed; and whether he is satisfied that a substantial amount of money could not be saved in this department.

I have no reason to think that the section of Supreme Headquarters concerned with air operations is overstaffed. There are very few British members of this staff, so that the scope for savings by us is small.

Is the Minister aware that the late Deputy Supreme Commander says that drastic pruning is necessary because of extravagant expenditure and that these officers have no time to think? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in these circumstances it is time that he should make a thorough investigation into the matter?

I would not have expected Field Marshal Lord Montgomery to give absolute, unqualified praise to the arrangements made by another general.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will now take steps to bring to an end the inter-Departmental conflict involving the future operational rôle of the N.A.39 as a low level strike aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

There is no conflict. Constructive study and amicable discussion are proceeding.

Is the Minister aware that there is a lot of childish inter-Service rivalry about the future of this aircraft? In view of the fact that it has been outstanding now for approximately eight months, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman himself stepped in and tried to solve the conflict?

It is not a question of stepping in. We have to try to decide what we shall need in the mid-1960s and the second half of the 1960s. That is not altogether an easy question. We have to be sure that we are, as far as possible, looking ahead and taking the right decision. I think it is better that we should take a little longer now rather than take a wrong decision and waste a great deal more time and money

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will set up a committee to examine court-martial procedure and to make recommendations for improvement.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several recent cases have shattered public confidence in the fairness of courts-martial, and is not this widespread mistrust strengthened by such cases as that of ex-Corporal Ford, where a sentence of nine months was first imposed, then cut to two months and finally waived altogether? Surely, that kind of case indicates a need for some thoroughgoing review of the whole machinery.

Of course, the process of appeal and revision is one of the essential safeguards for the prisoner. If appeals never resulted in any change in sentence, the hon. Gentleman would, I think, be more justified in his criticism.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government's acceptance of the recommendation contained in paragraph 251 of the Report of the Grigg Committee, shown at the foot of page 3 of Command Paper No. 570, involves the review of pay and pensions at intervals of not more than two years with a consequent increase in these emoluments in order to take into account movements in civilian earnings over a range of occupations to be determined by agreement between the Treasury and the Service Departments.

The Government have accepted the principle of a biennial review of Service pay and pensions, in order to see how they compare with civilian earnings, and to make any necessary adjustments. The precise factors to be taken into account have yet to be decided. The question whether any increases are required will naturally depend on the facts revealed by the review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are once again getting pretty near to sharp practice? The idea has been sold to the public that the rates of pay and pensions are to be linked with the rise in the cost of living, and it is only, of course, when it becomes politically convenient for the Minister of Health to qualify it that we now get this emphasis on the word "review" rather than on an increase should an increase be necessary.

I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. What I have said is that we are going to have a review every two years to see how Service pay and pensions compare with civilian earnings and in order to decide whether, if there has been a change, any adjustment in pay and pensions is necessary. I am not going to take for granted that we are always going to have continuing inflation, which would imply a continuing increase under this arrangement in Service pay and pensions.

If the Minister of Defence does not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is driving at, will he look at what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said recently on this matter, when he made it quite clear that, in his opinion, the principle of a review precisely to meet the possibility of inflation was not accepted by the Government in relation to the Forces; and does he not agree that there is a real conflict between the implications of the two Ministers' remarks?

I do not know to what particular statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am afraid that I do not always read all my colleagues' remarks on all subjects. However, I should be exceedingly surprised, when I come to read his statement, if I found that there was any divergence of view between that statement and my own. The Government's position with regard to the revision of Service pay and pensions is very clearly set out in the White Paper, issued just the other day, and I do not think that I need add more to that.

I can help the Minister, Mr. Speaker. by giving him a reference—

Order.

asked the Minister of Defence what action he is taking to improve the Service pensions paid to the widows of Regular officers.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government decision to review Service pay and pensions at intervals of not more than two years, as set out in page 3 of Command Paper, No. 545, includes the pensions of officers and men who retired under the older codes, or whether it is confined to pensions yet to be paid to personnel still serving.

As announced in Command Paper No. 570, the Government have decided to accept the Grigg Committee's recommendations that pensions should be increased and that Service pay and pensions should be reviewed every two years. The Committee's recommendations did not cover pensions of officers already retired or their widows.

Is it not quite callous and inhumane to tolerate a situation in which three out of every ten of these widows get less than the National Assistance scale and six out of every ten are over 70 years of age and so cannot qualify for National Insurance benefits? How long is this victimisation of the old to be continued? Surely, the Government have some conscience in the matter.

I am sure we all have quite as much sympathy for these people as has the hon. Gentleman without trying to work ourselves up in order to prove it.

Prove it.

The Grigg Committee—and perhaps I can have the hon. Gentleman's attention—recognised that many retired officers and their widows are suffering as a result of having their pensions eaten away, to some extent, by inflation. On the other had, the Committee thought that it would be wrong to try to deal with these Service cases separately and in isolation from the general body of persons who are receiving pensions from the State.

While I agree with my right hon. Friend that all public service pensioners must be considered together, may I ask him if he would not set an example to the other Government Departments in this respect? Would he not agree that there are thousands of these older public service pensioners who have been progressively impoverished for many years? Why should they be denied the assurance, at any rate, of benefiting from the review that is now being offered to younger officers, who are inside the National Insurance Scheme, and who, in any case, have the promise of codes of pensions far higher than those of the older men?

I should always be happy to try to set a good example, subject to the approval and support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oh.

What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that one cannot take these cases separately from the others? Why should we not have a general statement of policy? Is it not the fact that the contract originally entered into has been falsified by events, and, therefore, should not the contract be renewed and refreshed in the light of those events? Why should we allow inflation, whoever may be responsible for it, to victimise individuals who made a contract with the State and who are now suffering the changed circumstances?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his premise. The contract is, of course, for the particular rate of pension which they are, in fact, receiving. The contract is not for a pension that will rise as the cost of living varies. That is not the contract. The contract is for a pension at a given rate. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been cases where the Government of the day have thought it necessary and right to make certain pension increases, but those have not been as a result of any contractual obligations but have been aimed at relieving hardship.

May I be allowed to follow this up? The contract is not for a figure of money but for a standard of living represented by the money. That is the real contract between the citizen and the State, and if the standard of living is eroded by inflation, ought not the contract itself to be reviewed?

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, raising a very wide issue of principle, extending far beyond the question of Service pensions and pay, and I do not think that Question Time is the right occasion to deal with that large issue.

But is not this case exactly on all fours with the previous one, in which the Minister has already agreed to a biennial review of Service pay for this very purpose—to bring it into line with the cost of living? If he accepts that, why deny it in the case of past pensioners?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper or listened to the reply I made a moment ago. The purpose of the biennial review is not to relate pay and pensions to cost of living, but to ensure that what is being paid to the Service men is comparable with what they might hope to earn in civilian life.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that the Armed Forces at present serving in Cyprus are sufficient to restore and maintain law and order in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will make a statement.

After recent consultation with the Governor and military commanders, I am satisfied that the forces provided for internal security duties in Cyprus are sufficient.

Will the Minister be good enough to be candid with the House by saying how it is possible, on 19th June, to send the 1st Guards Brigade with an announcement from his Ministry that it had gone there specifically for town duties in connection with internal security, and then when the situation worsens to withdraw that Brigade, plus the 19th Brigade, and say that the position is as it was?

The hon. Gentleman is always accusing me of cooking the figures, misleading the House, or the like. I wish he would leave out these prefaces to his remarks. The Guards Brigade was sent out, as the hon. Gentleman says, during the summer, and an announcement was made that it had been sent in order to strengthen the forces available for internal security duties. That was at a time—and I would ask him to bear this in mind—when we were threatened with growing intercommunal strife, which might have developed into something very much larger than the situation, serious as that is, with which we are faced today.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the official publication in the United States of America of information about a new North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base for submarines to be placed on the coast of Ayrshire; what consultations have taken place on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

I think the hon. Member must be referring to an anti-submarine boom and not to a base for submarines. I am naturally aware of this project. In fact, I announced it to the House last December. The local authorities concerned were duly consulted.

Is the Minister aware that contracts for this purpose were first asked for in the United States of America and that they took the local authorities in Ayrshire completely by surprise? Is it not going to be a very expensive boom at£1 million a year, and is not the right hon. Gentleman, by agreeing to this national expenditure, encouraging the inflation which has disastrous economic effects on the country?

As regards being taken by surprise, I thought the authorities might have got over that surprise during the past year. The cost will be shared by the N.A.T.O. countries in accordance with the usual agreed formula. For Ayrshire, I should think that this scheme will bring very welcome employment.

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

asked the Minister of Defence the outcome of recent discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America about the proposed location in the North of Scotland of a new radar station as part of the ballistic missile early-warning system; whether this station, when operational, will be under British, American or joint North Atlantic Treaty Organisation control; and who will bear its cost.

I hope to satisfy the hon. Member more than some of his colleagues. Matters have not yet proceeded beyond a preliminary examination of the possible advantages and technical feasibility of siting a radar station of this kind somewhere in the British Isles.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of my Question regarding control and cost?

The questions of who is to pay and who is to control have not arisen because, as I have explained in my original Answer, it has not been decided that there is to be such a radar station in the British Isles.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give further information about the expenditure of£4½ million on the expedition to Jordan

This additional expenditure was due mainly to the cost of moving men, equipment and stores.

What have we as a country got for the expenditure of £4½million at a time when we are threatened with inflation? Is that not a very big sum for safeguarding King Hussein, when he is not safe after all?

Our direct assistance averted an external threat to overthrow the lawful Government of Jordan. As a result of our action there is today in Jordan greater stability and confidence than there has been for a very long time.

On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer I have received, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals were made by Her Majesty's Government at the recent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly for the organisation of a World Refugee Year.

The United Kingdom Delegate explained the purposes of a World Refugee Year as envisaged in the United Kingdom and invited the General Assembly to support a resolution urging all countries to cooperate in promoting one. This resolution, the text of which I will, with permision, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, was adopted by a large majority. Her Majesty's Government propose to support the Year in the United Kingdom, subject to Parliamentary approval, by a donation of £100,000.

In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for the initiative he has taken in this matter, may I ask him to regard this inauguration of the World Refugee Year as an opportunity to raise further funds on an international scale to tackle this very difficult problem on a much wider scale than has been possible hitherto?

Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that on both sides of the House there is appreciation of the initiative which the Government took at the United Nations—in response, by the way, to an all-party back bench appeal—for the World Refugee Year? Is the Minister further aware that if we are to maintain the position which we have now established in the world and the lead that we have given, the financial contribution should be commensurate with that lead? Will he see to it that we match £ for£all moneys subscribed by voluntary agencies in this country?

We shall certainly be as generous as we can be, but we must remember that we are not lacking in generosity in the contributions we are already making in other directions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate voted on the proposal that the agenda of the Assembly of the United Nations should include membership of the Chinese People's Republic; and which nations voted for and against, and which abstained.

The United Kingdom Representative voted in favour of a resolution that the Question of Chinese representation should not be inscribed on the agenda or considered during the current Session of the General Assembly. Forty-four votes were cast in favour of this resolution, 28 against and there were nine abstentions. Details of the voting are given in United Nations document A/PV.755 for 23rd September, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

How long are the Government to be subservient to the American Government in this matter? Is it not logical that, since we have recognised the Chinese Government, we should seek that it should enter the United Nations? Is there any hope of a solution about Formosa or about any other question in the Far East as long as one-sixth of the world is excluded from the United Nations?

We have to consider the consequences of bringing this controversy into the United Nations at the present moment. Our judgment has been that for the time being it is better not to introduce controversy.

Do not the Government themselves reject the absurd fiction that the Chiang Kai-shek régime speaks for China? Until the Chinese Government have been received into the United Nations, are we not in plain violation of the Charter, which lays it down that China shall have a permanent representative on the Security Council?

However that may be, more than half of the members of the United Nations are in favour of postponing consideration of this question. The other day hon. Gentlemen opposite were cross with me for voting in a minority. Apparently they are now cross with me for voting in a majority. I still adhere to my view that we have to consider the stresses and strains to which the United Nations would be subjected if faced with this controversy at the present time.

For years when there was no firing going on in Formosa and the offshore islands we took no action, except on one occasion when, I think, we refrained from voting at all. Now there is trouble we do not vote because there is trouble. In what circumstances envisaged by the Foreign Secretary could we advocate the entry of Communist China into the United Nations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that opinion in this country and in America is overwhelmingly against him on this subject?

What hon. Gentlemen opposite really have to consider is the effect upon the United Nations. It might not strengthen that body if it were to gain one new member or change of representation and lose many others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate voted in the General Assembly of the United Nations on 30th October on the Resolution deciding not to accept the suggestions contained in the Good Offices Committee on South-West Africa, which envisaged partition and annexation of any part of the territory as a basis for the solution of the question of South-West Africa.

The United Kingdom Delegate voted in favour of the Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 30th October, on the Report of the Good Offices Committee on South-West Africa.

Since this matter will arise again, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that before it is reconsidered full inquiry will be made into the wishes of the native population in South-West Africa?

The hon. Member's Question related to the past. As for the future, I will certainly consider the point he has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps, with other Powers, to develop the principle of establishing a world police force, in view of the attempt under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter having been unsuccessful.

Her Majesty's Government support the views set out by the Secretary-General in his recent report on the experience derived from the operation of the United Nations Emergency Force. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Does the Minister realise that the lack of co-operation by Governments on the other side of the Iron Curtain is making it extremely difficult to establish a world police force? In view of this situation, can the Minister say whether there are any ways by which this matter can be brought to life instead of remaining dormant?

I share the views of the hon. Member about this matter. I was very pleased to see that the United Nations Emergency Force is to be continued for another year, as there was some doubt about that and some anxiety about whether it would be prevented from happening. That is one good thing. I consider it a good idea that there should be some study with a view to establishing procedure whereby a force could be set up at short notice. I hope that the Secretary-General's idea of establishing a staff, with plans all ready made, at the United Nations will be accepted. Although that is only a modest step forward, at least it is a step forward.

Even though such a force could be set up at short notice under the proposals of the Secretary-General, is it not important to consider that the force be regarded as one which is directly recruited and not composed of national contingents which could be withdrawn at short notice? Is not direct recruitment something at which we should aim?

That might be a good objective ultimately, but I am certain that it is not at present practicable. In my view, the easiest way is to get certain people earmarked by their Governments, certain detachments of forces earmarked for speedy use.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have yet recognised the Government of the Republic of Guinea, under M. Sékou-Touré, following its attainment of independence.

Yes, Sir, on 1st November.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us welcome that statement and hope that there will be most wholehearted co-operation with this new territory in West Africa which has gained its independence?

A representative of the President is coming here next week, and I look forward to meeting him and discussing our relationship.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give early consideration to the formation of a branch of the British Council in Morocco.

We are considering the possibility of expanding the British Council's work overseas, but in the foreseeable future, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the funds available to the British Council are not likely to be sufficient for opening a branch in Morocco.

While appreciating the financial difficulty that always faces the extension of this service or of any other service, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether he is aware that a branch in Morocco would be generally welcomed, and that it is a very good way of spending our money to show the flag by teaching English and showing our culture in those countries?

I accept everything the hon. Member has said. We will look at the specific problem of the teaching of English. The view he has expressed applies to a large number of other territories. We have to consider them as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has about the trial of Mr. Topham's assailant in Cuba; what compensation has so far been offered to Mr. Topham; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to see that no fighter aircraft will be delivered to the Cuban Government until this British subject's claim has been settled.

The court-martial has been fixed for 20th January, 1959. So far, no compensation has been offered to Mr. Topham. As regards the last part of the Question, there is no reason to believe that the decision of the Cuban Government over Mr. Topham would be affected by any considerations relating to the supply of arms.

Does my right hon. Friend realise how much my constituent will feel relieved that my right hon. Friend is taking a personal interest in this matter? In view of the fact that this has gone on now for more than two years, we can at least wait another two months, but can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that if anything goes wrong he will do everything he can to ensure that something effective is done to put the matter right?

I agree that this matter has gone on far too long, but that has not been the fault of my hon. Friend nor of the Foreign Office, because we have made constant representations about the matter. I sincerely hope there will be no further postponement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government have supplied the Government of Cuba with jet aeroplanes and tanks.

No jet aeroplanes have been supplied to the Cuban Government. Her Majesty's Government agreed some months ago as a normal transaction to authorise sales of seventeen pistonengined aircraft by a British firm and fifteen Comet tanks from surplus stocks.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that civil war is raging in Cuba? Would it not be better to recognise this state of belligerency and to refuse to supply arms or to allow private firms to supply arms to either side?

There is a good deal of disagreement as to what is taking place in Cuba today, but I agree with the hon. Member that the situation has rather changed since these orders were given, and certainly any future requests of this sort will have to be examined in the light of the situation at the time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their declared policy regarding the establishment of a neutralised area in Central Europe, including Western and Eastern Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, in view of the official proposal by the Foreign Minister of Poland that an agreement should be negotiated for disarmament in this area, covering both nuclear and conventional weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will reopen discussions with the Polish Government on the Rapacki Plan, in view of Mr. Rapacki's official statement in Oslo that his Government are now prepared to include provisions for the reduction of conventional armed forces and weapons in the proposed nuclear-free zone in Central Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the latest official proposals of the Polish Government concerning the limitation of armaments in Central Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now considered the new proposals for disengagement in Europe officially suggested by M. Rapacki; and whether it is now intended to initiate discussions with the Polish authorities on these proposals.

So far, no official communication has been received from the Polish Government. We are, however, studying the statement made by Monsieur Rapacki on 4th November, in consultation with our Allies.

In studying that statement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that in three respects the new proposal goes much further than the earlier proposal from Poland? In the first place, inspection and control are allowed. In the second place, in the first stage nuclear weapons would only be prohibited to countries which do not possess them. Thirdly, in the second stage there would be a reduction in conventional arms as well as in nuclear weapons. In view of these great concessions, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to find a basis of agreement?

I certainly think that the Polish Government and their Foreign Minister are absolutely sincere in putting forward these proposals. I think the difficulty or the factor which must govern our view of this matter is whether any plan For disengagement will be acceptable if it changes the balance of military security to the disadvantage of either side. That seems to be the test by which we should judge these proposals.

Is not the great merit of these new proposals that they offer reciprocal advantages? Will not the Foreign Secretary seize this opportunity to take a British initiative for the calling of a high-level conference to discuss these proposals?

What I said is that we are considering these proposals in concert with our allies, and the test we must apply to them is whether they change the balance of military security to our disadvantage. We are examining them in the light of that test.

If it is indeed the case that the Government have not yet made up their mind on this matter, will the Foreign Secretary instruct the News Department of the Foreign Office not to make comments on these proposals which are based on distortion of their content so extreme as to be dishonest?

If the hon. Member will give chapter and verse of any comments, I will look into it.

Is it not a fact that these new proposals, whilst not yet made officially by the Polish Government to the Western Powers, nevertheless constitute a very hopeful departure in policies relating to Europe? Ought not the Foreign Secretary himself to take rather more initiative in this matter than he has taken so far? How long will these consultations take? Must we allow the European situation to go on deteriorating before we seize the opportunities available to us?

I am not prepared to accept any plan which changes the balance of military security to our disadvantage. I say that flatly and directly.

Is it not a fact that, in the first place, the Foreign Secretary says that he is examining these plans in association with our allies and, in the second place, he throws cold water on the proposals at the very beginning? Whether there is a balance of disadvantage or advantage to us surely is easily assessable without allowing weeks and months to go by while the European situation deteriorates?

There are some cases in which a flat negative is not the right thing at the beginning. I should have thought the right hon. Member would have thought of the wisdom of considering whether these proposals in fact involve some military disadvantage to us. I tell him again that we will certainly not accept any proposal to do that.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that many of us are encouraged to learn that apparently he now recognises the significance of the fact that these proposals come from Poland? Will he take into consideration the fact that, whatever may be the arguments against the total withdrawal of the occupation troops facing each other in this area at present, on the Government's own pronouncements there is no balance of conventional forces there and no nuclear weapons there, and the great advantage of the Rapacki Plan is that it does not call for a complete withdrawal of occupation forces but for a reduction in what admittedly are still token forces, which would still have the same effect, and that acceptance of the Plan would give an opportunity of examining the effects of a reduction of these token forces?

I have said we shall examine the proposals, but I repeat that proposals which would operate to change the balance of military security on either side are not acceptable. In saying this, I thought I was speaking for both sides of the House.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not speaking for us.

I was quoting from a joint statement by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress stating:

"We fully realise that no plan for disengagement will be acceptable if it changes the balance of military security to the disadvantage of either side."

But is it not a fact that the last proposal, which, as I admit, has not yet been put forward officially by the Polish Government but mentioned by M. Rapacki—the Foreign Secretary of Poland—is a very important departure from the original position and does not, in our view, affect the balance against us at all. We do not therefore accept the Foreign Secretary's position in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that former Nazi judges and prosecutors have been appointed to judicial positions in Western Germany: and if he will ask the Federal German Government to investigate and report on this.

My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that allegations have been made by the East German Communist authorities against persons holding judicial appointments in the Federal Republic. As regards investigations by the Federal German Government, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 17th November.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have that reply with me and it reveals that investigations have been going on for more than twelve months? The Federal Government have only just got round to appointing a central co-ordinating authority to carry on further investigations. Does it not appear to be procrastination and evasion of the issue? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has been informed of 200 cases of quite specific charges which, as he knows, have immense propaganda value? Will he take some action to get an answer to those charges of Nazification of the judicial bench?

I do not accept the charge of procrastination, and the propaganda value is, of course, propaganda value to Eastern Germany.

Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that his right hon. and learned Friend promised me not twelve but eighteen months ago that an urgent investigation would then be made? Does he not think that at the end of twelve to eighteen months of investigation into a point of this kind—the answer to which ought to be readily available—if the Government are still not satisfied what the position is, that is evidence that they have not really been trying very hard to find out? Will he remember that these matters loom very large in people's minds when they remember what the effect was and how these people behaved in the years during the war? This is not a light matter. Will the Government treat it seriously?

I think the hon. Member failed to read my last Answer, in which I made it perfectly clear that this new court had been set up by the West German Government.

When the Under-Secretary is inquiring into this matter, will he also inquire into whether it is the case that in Eastern Germany former Nazis have been appointed to official positions in the State?

I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for that intervention, I hope he will draw the attention of hon. Members on his side of the House to it.

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the last two sentences of the answer which the Minister has just given involve a personal attack on those of us who have been asking for this investigation, because it quite clearly implies what the hon. Member must know perfectly well to be quite false—that we are not interested in this question unless it occurs in Western Germany. That is not true. We want an end of people with these records being given authority. I personally want an end of authority for these people, whether they are in East Germany, West Germany or on the other side of the House.

I heard no personal attack made on anybody. I heard the Joint Under-Secretary of State ask the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) whether he would draw what he had said to the attention of his hon. Friends. Surely there is no personal attack in that.

Is it the Government's intention to imitate the Communists in every respect in this matter?

In view of the unsatisfactory and tendentious replies by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are now ready to abandon the policy of arming the German Federal Republic with nuclear weapons and insisting that united Germany must be free to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and will, instead, accept the revised Rapacki Plan as a basis of negotiation.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains that Germany should be reunified by free elections and that an all-German Government should be free to choose its own foreign policy and alliances. Such a Government would be free to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or the Warsaw Pact, or neither. With regard to nuclear weapons, the position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 2nd April, 1958.

Is it not a fact that the Government know that it is a foregone conclusion that Adenauer's Germany would remain in N.A.T.O.? Is it not further a fact that since 1953 there has been no chance of a settlement on this basis? Does this mean that the Government reject any form of disengagement and want to go on with their policy until the bombs come home?

Our view is that the German people should have the right of self-determination both in their domestic policy and in their foreign policy. The term "disengagement," of course, is capable of a variety of interpretations. Our sole concern has been that whatever plan is made should not add to insecurity rather than to security.

Have Her Majesty's Government any power to prevent Federal Germany from dissociating from N.A.T.O.?

We have no such power.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that at two successive meetings of the Council of Europe, when Parliamentarians from Federal Germany and other European countries were represented, any idea of a disengagement area or a Rapacki Plan was turned down each time it was put to the vote?

My right hon. Friend is quite right.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Cairo Declaration of 1st December, 1943, with regard to Formosa and the Pescadores, with particular reference to their restoration to the Republic of China, and with regard to the undertaking given in the Potsdam Declaration of 26th July, 1945, to carry out the terms of the Cairo Declaration.

As the hon. Member was informed in reply to Questions on 30th January, 1956, and 26th June, 1957, the Cairo Declaration, which was reaffirmed by the Potsdam Declaration, was merely a statement of common purpose. Both were made at a time when there was only one entity claiming to represent China. Since then there has been a civil war in China and opinions differ as to who now represents the Government of China. The problem of Formosa has become an international one, in which a number of nations are concerned, and it cannot be solved merely by reference to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations.

Did not the Government take the view in the Cairo Declaration that Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores were territories stolen from China by Japan, arid did they not pledge themselves to the purpose of restoring such territories to China? Do they not recognise the People's Republic of China as being the Government of China? Have they therefore either changed their mind about these territories being stolen from China, or do they believe that territories stolen from China should not be returned to that country?

I advise the hon. Member to read my reply, in which I stated the reasons why we did not consider that this matter could be solved now by reference simply to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. I thought that the question of Formosa was one on which there was common ground between the Opposition and the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to recognising the sovereign rights of the People's Republic of China over the Chinese coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 5th November and what I myself said on 15th February, 1956.

Did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman on those occasions say that in the Government's view these coastal islands are part of the territory of China? If so, is not any attempt by the United States to resist by force the recovery of possession of those islands by the Government of China an act of aggression by the United States?

On each occasion I referred to the statement made by Sir Anthony Eden in which he stated our view as to the juridical status of the islands but said that in our view the status quo should not be changed by force.

If it is the Government's view, first, that these islands belong to China but that we are not prepared to support any surrender to force, for how long would the Communist Government of China have to refrain from bombarding these islands for us to agree to restore them to China?

We do not have possession of the islands. It is not for us to restore them. I have always hoped that this is a matter which might be dealt with by negotiation.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to my question. It is not a question of restoring by us; it is a question of our support. For three years there was no firing. For how long would the bombardment have to cease in order that we might then be prepared to support the restoration of these islands to China?

Even if I were able to fix a period, there would be no point in my doing so. What we have to work for is a reduction in tension and worth-while negotiations, and that is what we have done.

I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can clear up a point for me? I did not quite catch the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether that question was friendly to Her Majesty's allies or friendly to Her Majesty's potential enemies?

I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend reads the hon. Member's supplementary question in HANSARD he will be able to form his own judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government propose to ratify the Convention and Protocol on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which came into force on 7th August, 1956.

Her Majesty's Government are still examining the obligations they would assume by ratifying this Convention, the provisions of which are very complex. Until this examination is complete I can give no date for ratification. As the Protocol attached to the Convention has not been signed by Her Majesty's Government, no question arises of their ratifying it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have yet agreed to the creation of the European Court of Human Rights in view of the fact that the United Kingdom have already ratified the Human Rights Convention.

Yes, Sir. The Human Rights Convention itself provides for the setting up of this Court. By becoming a party to the Convention, Her Majesty's Government have thereby agreed to the creation of the Court.

In view of that answer, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will now recognise the jurisdiction of that Court and nominate candidates?

No, Sir. We do not recognise the right of individual petition. That is the reason why we could not accept the jurisdiction, but we shall nominate members of the court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made towards settling the fisheries dispute with the Icelandic Government.

I regret to say that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on 12th November.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Icelandic Government have refused to submit this dispute to the International Court, and, if so, for what reason? Can he say what action is to take place next, and is he aware that this dispute is causing increased anxiety, particularly in view of the reported statement of the Icelandic Prime Minister that twelve miles would be enough for the time being?

I think I would be wise to say that the Icelandic Government have not yet agreed to go to the International Court and leave it at that. What is to happen next is that there will be a debate in the United Nations at which consideration will be given to whether we should have another conference regarding the law of the sea. Our own view is that it would be right to have such a conference and that the sooner it meets the better.

I saw in the paper today that our representative at the United Nations debate—which seems to have started—suggests a conference to be held in July or August. Is not that a very long time ahead in view of the extremely difficult circumstances under which the fleet is fishing around Iceland? Since, in his reply last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was trying to get an interim arrangement made, has he in mind any form of mediation, through N.A.T.O. or some other agency, to get something done for the fishing fleet during the long period which will elapse before the conference?

I should like to look into what the right hon. Gentleman says about the attitude adopted by our delegate. I think we should have a conference, and I hope that it will meet as soon as possible. Regarding interim arrangements, we are seeking to bring the Icelandic Government in some way to discuss some reasonable arrangement, but I do not think I ought to be more specific than that.

May I ask whether our trawlers are still being guarded by gunboats and whether there is a working arrangement regarding the present situation, or whether there is any danger of conflict between ourselves and the Icelandic fisheries peoplė?

Unfortunately, there is a danger of conflict, but protection is being given to the trawlers by the fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what request he received at his recent meeting with the Foreign Secretary of Yugoslavia for a loan to Yugoslavia; and what was the reply of Her Majesty's Government.

I discussed with the Yugoslav Foreign Minister the possibility of a loan. I am now considering the matter further with my colleagues and no decision has yet been reached. Hon. Members will realise the very heavy calls on the financial resources available.

In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman realise that, should he turn down this request from Yugoslavia, he will be losing an opportunity to make friends and influence people in a country which occupies a vital position politically in the world?

I think that our relations with Yugoslavia are well established on a basis of friendship, even though we may differ on some topics. I do not consider that the issue of this loan would affect these relations either way. I think that we are good enough friends for a decision to be taken, but I am aware of the opportunity and I hope I shall have a favourable reply to make; but no decision has yet been reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure international agreement on the use of the Nile waters.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 23rd October.

Does not the report of the Soviet Government's offer regarding the Aswan Dam underline the importance of this issue? Cannot the Government take some initiative, perhaps with the United Nations, to call a conference with Egypt and the Sudan, and could not the East African territories also be represented?

We think that a conference about the Nile waters would be a good thing, but at the moment the positions of Egypt and the Sudan on this matter are so far apart that a conference might do more harm than good. We hope to get these two countries closer together, and we have said that we would willingly attend a conference, whether convened by one of the major users or by some international organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding his progress towards the resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with Egypt.

I had a long discussion with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic in New York during the Special Assembly of the United Nations in August. As a result of that, we agreed to a speedy resumption of the financial negotiations. There were further discussions in Rome in September which, unfortunately, did not result in progress. I am considering what can be done to resume the talks with some prospect of a satisfactory conclusion; but I have nothing further to say to the House at this stage.

May I ask two questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman arising out of that Answer? First, will he confirm that the Suez Canal is being operated at present in some respects at least as well and in other respects better than it was operated by the old Suez Canal Company? Secondly, in view of that and his association with past events, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman now consider tendering his resignation?

I should like notice regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in order that I may give him a considered answer. Regarding the second part, I treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the prolonged absence of diplomatic relations with Egypt is a grave disadvantage in our attempts to develop any fresh Middle Eastern policy? Does he not think that he ought to take some initiative to try to bring that situation to an end? Is it not the case that the French, who were involved in the 1956 expedition with us, have reached agreement so that not only their individual citizens but also their institutions have returned to Egypt? Is it not time that the same thing happened with us? May I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has anything to say about the initiative which, I understand, has been taken by Mr. Black of the International Bank in offering his good offices to get negotiations going again?

I am in perfect agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It would be a good thing to resume diplomatic relations. It is necessary, however, that we should have some settlement of the outstanding financial problems. Otherwise, I do not think that the resumption of diplomatic relations would serve as useful a purpose as it should. With regard to Mr. Black, I should prefer a Question to be put on the Order Paper.