asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Government policy relating to the admission of the People's Republic of China to a seat on the Council of the United Nations Organisation.

Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter remains as frequently stated in this House and elsewhere.

Does not the Secretary of State think that this very important matter is worthy of a more detailed Answer, and does he not agree that, having regard to the disquieting policy of China on the Indian border, never was it more important that China should be brought within the comity of civilised nations than at present? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to bring that about?

I appreciate the importance of the matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but Her Majesty's Government's position has been stated at length on this matter before, and I have nothing to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what resolutions on the subject of South-West Africa were adopted by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations; how the British delegate voted on each; which delegates voted for or against each resolution; and which abstained.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11th November to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu).

I have read that reply, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us regard as disgraceful the fact that in the United Nations the British Government should have sided with the Union of South Africa on this issue instead of protesting against the aggression which it has committed in South-West Africa?

As I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), this problem cannot be solved without the co-operation of the Union Government. We must have that co-operation.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any recent discussions with other Commonwealth countries which hold different views? Is he aware that the Commonwealth is badly divided on this subject?

I cannot say whether discussions have been taking place other than those in the United Nations. I should need notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegation at the United Nations to bring before the Assembly for discussion the report of Sir Leslie Munro concerning conditions in Hungary; and whether he will support a proposal that the mission entrusted to Sir Leslie Munro should be prolonged for a further period.

Sir Leslie Munro has not yet submitted his report, but I understand he will do so shortly. Until it is available to Her Majesty's Government no decision can be taken on the instructions to be given to the United Kingdom delegation I have, however, taken note of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that there is still considerable disquiet in this country about conditions in Hungary? Would he agree that it is derogatory to the authority of the United Nations unless its appointed representative has full opportunities to carry out his mission, which is to investigate conditions in Hungary?

I am conscious of that point of view and will certainly take it into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that 30 identifiable young Hungarians, aged 18 years, have recently been shot in Hungary by order of the Hungarian Government, and that about 100 other youths are due to be shot when they reach the age of 18 years, because of the fact that they are alleged to have taken part in the Hungarian uprising in 1956, when they were 15 years of age or under; and if he will bring this matter to the notice of the United Nations Special Commissioner on Hungary without delay so that some action may be taken to prevent any further executions.

There have been numerous disturbing reports in recent months of executions in Hungary. I have no confirmation of the alleged executions to which my hon. Friend refers.

As I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the names of these young Hungarians who were murdered, would he agree that it would be monstrous if this callous, inhuman, uncivilised conduct were allowed to continue without some widespread and international protest or effort being made to stop further butchery?

I will certainly be glad to pass on any information that my hon. Friend gives me. A Question was asked earlier by an hon. Member opposite about the United Nations debating these matters. I shall have more information to give to the House on that matter shortly.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this charge has been bluntly and repeatedly repudiated by the Hungarian Government, and that the Hungarian Government have invited all those who make these silly charges to provide proof and to give chapter and verse for the alleged hanging of these young people?

I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would be for the Hungarian Government to co-operate with Sir Leslie Munro. That would be the best way to deal with these matters. Up to now the Hungarian Government have refused to do that.

They have invited this Government to do it, and other Governments, too.

If the Hungarian Government were to grant Sir Leslie Munro a visa to enter Hungary, will the Foreign Secretary do his best to ensure that his visit comes about?

I agree that that is the way to rebut these charges, if they can be rebutted.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why some hon. Members protest about visits of leading statesmen of other countries to Spain, but when a human matter like this is raised they do not protest?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative at the United Nations voted against a motion requesting France to refrain from carrying out nuclear test explosions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the condemnation by the United Nations Political Committee of the prospective test of nuclear weapons in the Sahara desert, what action our representative took in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate voted on the resolution before the United Nations urging France to refrain from nuclear tests; which nations voted for the resolution; which against; and which abstained.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the United Kingdom representative on the Political Commission of the United Nations General Assembly voted against the resolution demanding the abandonment of the French nuclear tests programme in the Sahara; and whether he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom voted against the draft resolution put forward by certain Afro-Asian countries because it was based on the assumption—which we consider to be incorrect—that the proposed French tests would endanger health in other countries, and because we considered that our draft resolution was more realistic and constructive. There were 46 votes in favour of the Afro-Asian resolution, 26 against, and 10 abstentions. I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Was not this throwing away the chance of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations? If the Government wish France to join an agreement banning tests, why on earth did they encourage France to proceed with them?

The Afro-Asian resolution contained a preamble which we believed to be incorrect. It was based on the false assumption that there was danger to health from the tests. To explain our positive attitude, I remind the hon. Member of the operative part of our resolution:

"expresses the hope that the French Government will associate themselves with the arrangements which may be worked out in order to achieve the suspension of nuclear weapons tests under effective international control;"

"requests France to take full account of the views expressed in this debate."

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that all scientists in all countries agree that letting off these devices is not for the benefit of most people—it certainly does not do us any good—and that if Britain had not cast its vote with the minority, that would have looked more consistent with the Government's avowed intention of working at Geneva for the banning of these tests? Did not our action look rather like hypocrisy?

I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen should be so ready to describe our action in that way. We put forward a resolution which received a wide measure of support and which contained a constructive approach to this matter—I believe, the only constructive approach. Why hon. Members should be so anxious to denigrate the position of the Government I do not understand.

May we take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer endorses the French action and is an indication that he welcomes this extra test? If not, cannot he give some indication of his regret that this experiment should take place?

We have said that we do not think that this test will do any physical damage to anybody. That is our position. I remind hon. Gentlemen that the Moroccan delegate, when introducing this resolution, said that he did not mind the French having nuclear tests, but objected to the tests being in Africa. Our position is that we do not think that the test will do any damage. Our constructive policy towards the suspension of tests is contained in our resolution.

We are not asking the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks that the French tests will do damage or not. The question is whether Her Majesty's Government are in favour of any more nuclear tests, including the French test. Why was not the answer to that question made clear at the United Nations? Will the Foreign Secretary answer this question: are the Government in favour of or against any more nuclear tests, including the French test?

That kind of supplementary question makes me wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to make mischief, [interruption.] We want to secure the suspension of all nuclear tests. We are trying to get agreement to that effect. When we get agreement to that effect among the three nuclear Powers, we hope that other Powers will join. That is a perfectly straightforward statement, as hon. Members will agree, I think.

Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he thought it proper to authorise the introduction of this resolution to the United Nations Political Committee last Tuesday, and yet when be was in France on Wednesday and Thursday, according to the answers to the questions I asked him on Monday, he did not think it proper even to discuss with any representative of the French Government the adherence of the French Government to a future test ban treaty?

The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. If he looks at my Answer, he will see that I said that I did discuss this matter with M. Couve de Murville.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report he has had from the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in respect of a plan to abolish malnutrition in the Mediterranean region; and if that plan will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

The Mediterannean Development Project of the Food and Agriculture Organisation was discussed by Commission I of the Tenth F.A.O. Conference on 11th November. The project received general support, including that of Her Majesty's Government. The draft report to the Plenary Meeting is still under discussion.

While expressing appreciation of the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are supporting this project, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in fact the assertion is that under this project malnutrition can be abolished within fifteen years? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will financially support the project when it is in operation?

We will give general support, but I cannot go into details until the draft report has been submitted to the Plenary Council.

May I press the Joint Under-Secretary on the fact that this report is really of vast importance to the Mediterranean countries? It has been prepared over a long period of time with the greatest possible care. Cannot he say that the Government will support any international plan for adequate loans and carry out the plan when it is agreed to?

I have said that we shall give general support, but the details have not yet been worked out. It is impossible for me to commit the Government until we have seen the detailed proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the draft resolution concerning atomic weapons, introduced to the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly by the delegate of the Eireann Government.

Her Majesty's Government's Representative on this United Nations Committee voted for this resolution on 16th November.

While welcoming these things, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the affirmative vote of Her Majesty's Government implies that the Government will in no circumstances support handing over control of nuclear warheads to countries which have not made nuclear weapons?

I think an affirmative vote for this resolution implies support for the resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Government supports the candidature of Turkey to the Security Council.

The reasons have already been given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech on 29th October in the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Turkey has now put forward her candidature as an Asian State, although Middle Eastern countries and most, if not all, Asian members of the Commonwealth are voting for Poland? Is he not also aware that Turkey has put forward her claim to represent South Eastern Europe outside the Soviet bloc, although Greece and Yugoslavia are voting for Poland? Finally, does he not know that Turkey, a few years ago, put forward her claim to be recognised as a West European State on the strength of her membership of N.A.T.O.? Is it not now time that the Government supported Poland and stopped this foolishness of supporting Turkey?

No. My hon. Friend stated our reasons for supporting Turkey. I agree that it is a difficult matter, but the real solution, as I think the hon. Member knows, is that as the membership of the Security Council is too small; it should be increased.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the reasons given by his hon. Friend did not satisfy many Members? I have nothing against Turkey's membership of the Security Council in the ordinary way, but is it not a fact that she has twice been a member of the Security Council, and that it would have made for better relations between East and West, and a reduction of tension, if Her Majesty's Government had supported the claim of Poland to this seat?

In his speech my hon. Friend said that Turkey is a strong and loyal ally of ours, with a very balanced and stabilising contribution to make. We had just supported Poland's candidature for the Economic and Social Council, and we thought it right to support Turkey's candidature for the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply was made to the official request, made to him, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China, by the Government of the Chinese People's Republic, that, in view of their allegation that Article 15 of the Cease-Fire Agreement is being broken, Her Majesty's Government should urge the Laos Government to abandon the trial of Prince Souphanouvong and others in order not to intensify antagonisms among its people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the official communications sent to him, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, by the Polish and Chinese Governments regarding the arrest and impending trial of Prince Souphanouvong and seven other leaders of the former Pathet Lao forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the impending trial of Prince Souphanouvong and other leaders of the Neo Lao Haksat party of Laos constitutes, prima facie, a breach of the Geneva Agreement; what official representations Her Majesty's Government, as a sponsor and co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference of 1954, has received from the other Governments concerned about the need to safeguard the rights guaranteed by that Agreement to these men, seven of whom are members of the Laotian National Assembly; and what replies he has sent.

I presume the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is referring to Governments which were members of the Geneva Conference. We received a Note from the Chinese Government on this subject on 31st October and have replied to it. Our reply fully sets out our position and, as it is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The matter was also raised with us by the Soviet Government and we have expressed views similar to those contained in our reply to the Chinese Note. No communication from the Polish Government has been received here.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in the first place, he would consult his co-Chairman on this matter in view of the allegation that there has been a breach of the Geneva Agreement, and, secondly, whether he would use his influence to secure the abandonment of this trial in order to help the neutralisation of Laos, of which he expressed himself in favour last week?

This matter is, of course, being discussed between the two co-Chairmen. I indicated in my Answer that a reply had been received. The position, so far as the Laotian Government are concerned, is that they consider it an internal matter. The hon. Gentleman will realise that when a Government take up that position it is very difficult to state publicly that one is going to seek to influence them one way or the other.

Was not the Laotian Government a party to the Geneva Agreement which dealt with a number of internal matters, including the question of the resolving of the differences between the Government and the Pathet Lao forces? As this is the source of the present difficulties, would not the sensible thing be to agree with the Indian Government in supporting the recall of the International Control Commission?

As far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, I think that there is no doubt that Article 9 of the Political Agreement signed at Vientiane on 2nd November, 1957, is relevant. So far as the recalling of the International Control Commission is concerned, we have said again and again that that really cannot happen unless the Laotian Government are willing to have it back. On the question of these trials, I think that if hon. Members will consider the case which we have put forward in our recent Note they will realise that there is merit in it. But I still adhere very definitely to what I said before, that our intention is to have a neutral Laos.

Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the first supplementary question, which seems reasonable, that the reply which is to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT indicates the continuing interest of Her Majesty's Government, as one of the co-signatories, in this matter?

We certainly have a continuing interest in the carrying out of the Geneva Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, from the Government of Laos about the proposed trial of Prince Souphanouvong and seven other leaders of the Neo Lao Hak Sat Party.

I have received no report from the Government of Laos about this matter. The Laotian Govern-Government does not report to the co-Chairmen and would in any case regard this question as an internal matter.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the situation with regard to the 1954 Geneva Conference has now become absurd? Is he as a co-Chairman still of the opinion that his function is merely to receive reports about the situation? If, through some unfortunate circumstance, Prince Souphanouvong and the other seven representatives should be tried, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman as co-Chairman undertake to see that observers are sent to the trial and that the evidence is made available to him and the House?

It is quite true that I am one of the co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference, together with Mr. Gromyko. But that is a position in which one does not have the power to enforce any views one has, and one has therefore to exercise one's influence in the best way one can to secure declared objectives. I have declared my objectives, but it is not wise to say publicly the way in which one tries to implement or achieve them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Note of 16th September requesting the reconvening of the Geneva Conference of 1954 to consider the situation at Laos.

An interim reply which answered some of the points made by the Soviet Government in their published proposals was sent on 21st September and published on that day. A further reply was made on 9th November. I will circulate both these documents in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS my hon. Friend told the House on 11th November, we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion.

The Foreign Secretary said this afternoon that it is our purpose to get a neutral Laos. Can we hope to get that without the co-operation of the Government of Peking? Since that Government have said that they are ready to sit at the table in a renewed conference and to negotiate questions arising about Laos, would not it be wise to start negotiating again with them?

This is a matter of judgment. The Government of Peking are not the only Government concerned. I have said that we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion, but it is a matter of judgment.

Is it not certain that we cannot get a neutral and stable Laos without the co-operation of the Government of Peking? Is not that the principal point that we ought to consider?

I agree that it is important to get a measure of co-operation. At the moment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council is dealing with this matter and the Secretary-General has just been there. All I can say is that I am not able to accept the Soviet suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries in the Middle East, which are members of the United Nations Organisation, with which Great Britain has no diplomatic relations; what are the reasons; and what progress has been made to restore normal diplomatic relations with these members of the United Nations Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restore normal diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic.

The United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia are the two countries concerned.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reply will be satisfactory to the people of this country, who will be glad to know that there is no obstacle to resuming relations with the Arab world, in particular the United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia?

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is any truth in reports that diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic may be resumed before the New Year? Secondly, can he say whether the dispute over the Buraimi Oasis is still an obstacle to diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia?

In reply to the first supplementary question, we have had no communication through official channels to that effect. As regards the second matter, our view is that if there is a dispute between two countries, that is a reason for having diplomatic relations so that it can be discussed.

What is the Foreign Secretary actually doing to try to get diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic, apart from just stating that he is willing to have them again?

I think a clear statement to that effect is the best contribution we can make.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further developments have taken place in respect of Yemeni-British relationships; and what alteration of the diplomatic status of our representative in Taiz is contemplated.

The situation on the Aden-Yemen border has been quiet for many months. As hon. Members will know, the Governor of Aden and Lady Luce are visiting Taiz as guests of Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, and although this is a private visit contacts established on occasions of this kind may be valuable in improving relations.

Does this mean that political developments within the Yemen are encouraging in the direction of more friendly relationships between the Yemen and this country?

I think I should prefer to confine myself to the points in my Answer. First of all, things have been quiet for many months, and that is a good thing. Secondly, there is this private visit which will enable contacts to be made by the Governor and Lady Luce, and that, again, I think is a good thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to produce a favourable atmosphere for the Summit Conference, he will instruct the United Kingdom representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose the issue of nuclear weapons to German forces, to object to Germany being allowed to build bigger warships, and to express disapproval of United States arms firms placing North Atlantic Treaty Organisation contracts in Germany.

German forces are not given control of nuclear weapons.

Is it not a fact that American firms are placing large contracts in Germany for the making of weapons for the use of N.A.T.O. forces, and is not the whole policy of increasing German military power, without demanding guarantees about German foreign policy, one fraught with considerable danger and calculated to make the success of a Summit Conference more difficult?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The policy of the rearming of Germany was initiated from the other side of the House without any question of the control of German foreign policy. I think it has been the right policy, because we must have collective defence in Western Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the Western European Union, has now agreed to permit Western Germany to build submarines; and how many.

No request for amendment to the provision of the Revised Brussels Treaty about German manufacture of submarines has been made.

Does that Answer mean that Western Germany is not going to be permitted to build submarines?

The Question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me was:

"… whether Her Majesty's Government … has now agreed to permit Western Germany to build submarines; and how many."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the permission granted to Western Germany by the Western European Union, of which Her Majesty's Government is a member, how many missiles Western Germany will be allowed to manufacture; and what is the nature of such missiles.

Under the provisions of Protocol III to the revised Brussels Treaty, Germany has undertaken not to manufacture any long-range or guided missiles other than guided anti-tank missiles and surface-to-air and air-to-air guided missiles for anti-aircraft defence.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although the Labour Government agreed to a measure of rearmament for Western Germany, it was never contemplated that Western Germany should either build submarines or be allowed to have these short-range missiles? Is he aware that the Minister of State, in reply to a Question by me last week, said that these missiles had no warheads? What kind of missiles are they if they do not require warheads?

I suspect that what my hon. Friend said was that they had no nuclear warheads. There is a difference, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, between a nuclear warhead and a high-explosive warhead. On the main matter of principle, which I quite agree is an important one, I have been studying what the right hon. Gentleman said at the time that he recommended this policy. He said "subject to certain safeguards". There are certain safeguards in the Brussels Treaty, and it is a matter of judgment with regard to their application.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he will lay on the Table the text of the revision of the Brussels Treaty permitting Germany to make these missiles?

Not without notice.

I have asked for it already.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make available in a White Paper the reports of the Armaments Control Agency of Western European Union on their inspection of West German arms production.

No, Sir. These reports are secret.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people, including many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, were induced to accept German armament only by the argument that it would be subject to control in the framework of Western European Union and the revised Brussels Treaty? Is it not, therefore, very important that we should know the extent to which the British Government are conniving at the gradual evasion on the restriction of German armaments and armament production?

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the policy of German rearmament, subject to that qualification. Much of the information which he seeks is contained in the Annual Report of the W.E.U. Council to the Assembly. The last Annual Report is in the Library, and I suggest that the hon. Member studies it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with Chancellor Adenauer, he will draw attention to the appointment of former Nazis to judicial positions in Germany, and urge that action be taken to replace them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he received the additional information sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, containing documents, photostats and charges against existing West German jurists that they collaborated with the Hitler régime and were responsible for crimes against humanity; and, since this information and that previously sent to him involve charges affecting some 1,000 former Nazi judges, and the West German Government have not yet supplied him with their promised report on the investigation into these charges, if he will, during the official visit of Chancellor Adenauer on 17th November, raise this matter with him, with a view to obtaining a complete answer to all of the cases mentioned in the documents submitted.

The documents referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. A. Lewis) were received on 9th November. They have been referred to our Embassy in Bonn as this is a matter for the Federal German Government.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary ask his right lion, and learned Friend to use the opportunity of these conversations with Chancellor Adenauer to impress on him that one of the best contributions to improving Anglo-German relations would be to root out of power former German militarists and Nazis in Germany and to provide the long-promised reform, which has been repeatedly mentioned in this House and on the need for which evidence has been constantly submitted to the Foreign Office?

I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend heard the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have not indicated that we would issue a report. What we have done is to refer to statements made by the Land Ministers of Justice in the Federal Republic who said that they would investigate all these reports as they came up, and are continuing to do so. They will not give us reports on individual cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy, as affirmed in the House on 19th February last, to reunite Germany within a framework agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers, to consult Germans from both sides of Germany as to the methods of unification, to make the stage at which free elections should take place in the process of unification a matter for negotiation, and not to regard the acceptance of free elections as a pre-condition for progress of any kind; and if he will make a statement.

The views of Her Majesty's Government on how Germany should be reunified are set out in the Western Peace Plan presented at the Geneva Conference in May. It was printed in Cmnd. 797.

With great respect, that is not a reply to my Question. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the three points laid down by the Minister of State on 19th February—first, that Germany should be reunited

"within a framework to be agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers"—

"It is not our position"—

Order. If hon. Members will allow the hon. Member to continue I will judge when he gets out of order through the sheer length of his supplementary question, and we shall get on more quickly.

I am still quoting—

"German reunification within a framework to be agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers …including free elections … It is not our position that free elections throughout Germany must be the first step in any process leading to reunification and that acceptance of this is a pre-condition for progress of any kind …there must be free elections at tome point, but there is room for negotiation about the exact point at which they should have to take place."

Order. In the interests of other hon. Members, the hon. Member must make his supplementary question more concise.

On a point of order. Recently, Mr. Speaker, you asked for shorter supplementary questions. The hon. Member's Question takes up seven lines on the Order Paper. Would you make a Ruling that in a supplementary question there should not be more than two questions, and not more than two sentences to any one question?

The Ruling is that a question, whether supplementary or not, should not be of inordinate length.

I am sorry to have to quote this, but the Foreign Secretary evaded my point. He would not answer. The last part of the quotation is:

"In our Note of 16th February we proposed that German advisers should be called to the conference from both sides to be consulted, I have no doubt that the method of reunification could be one of the topics upon which their views would be listened to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 575.]

Order. The hon. Member's supplementary question is of inordinate length. Mr. Hector Hughes, Question No. 48.

Is that still the Government's policy?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has so far been made in the implementation of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

By the first week of November, 1,552 applications for de-sequestration had been submitted to the Egyptian authorities. Of these, 1,363 had been accepted as being in order and 644 release agreements had either been signed or were awaiting signature. The value of the property released, up to 11th November, had reached over 60 per cent. of the total declared value of the assets registered with the Foreign Office.

Whilst thanking the Minister for that statement, may I ask whether he is aware that reports are being received to the effect that, although arrangements were made for British subjects to transfer £5,000 of their assets out of Egypt, they are not able to remove even £100? How can he account for this?

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me particulars of the instances he has mentioned, when I shall be glad to look into them.

I think it would be suitable if I raised the matter on the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and so I beg to give notice to that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he is making to secure the early release of Mr. James Zarb, who is still imprisoned in Egypt.

Our pleasure at Mr. Swinburn's release was qualified by the knowledge that Mr. Zarb remained in custody. I am deeply concerned about Mr. Zarb's case, but I ask the House to accept that public discussion of this matter is likely to retard the result we all desire.

Yes, but I think it is right to raise these issues here because James Swinburn has been referred to as my constituent and I was pleased that the general amnesty applied to him. I should have thought that, in view of the better relations between this country and that part of the world, it might well be possible for an approach to be made, because I believe that James Zarb should not be forgotten.

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement has now been reached with the Cuban Government as to the supply of military aircraft and other weapons.

No agreement has been reached with the Cuban Government in regard to the supply of military aircraft or other weapons. The Cuban Government have asked the Hawker Aircraft Company to exchange the seventeen Sea-Fury aircraft now owned by Cuba for an equivalent number of Hawker Hunters. Approval of the necessary export licence is under consideration.

Is the Government's reluctance to supply the Cuban Government with military aircraft due to pressure from America? Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government's reluctance to give the new Cuban Government weapons compares very unfavourably in the Cuban mind with the alacrity with which they gave the old régime weapons?

I can assure the hon. Member—I am very glad to see him back in the house again; he has questioned me many times in the past—that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration, including his support for the suggestion that we should license this export.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the need to expand trade with Cuba, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in this respect towards Cuba.

Her Majesty's Government are anxious to encourage the development of trade with Cuba as with other countries.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the main reason for the dispute between America and Cuba at the moment is the Cuban resentment at the low prices which Cuba can obtain for its raw materials in America? As we are very big buyers of Cuban raw materials, could not we use this as an opportunity to mediate between Cuba and the United States?

The Question deals with development in trade with Cuba, and I am all for developing that trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and by which States, for the inclusion of Spain in the Organisation.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposed visits of President Eisenhower and Dr. Adenauer to Spain in the near future look very much like a sinister move in that direction and are deplored by democrats in this country? Will he point out to those two leaders that it is very bad taste, politically, for them to visit that country where at the moment 271 men and women are in prison for political crimes, some of them for periods of up to twenty years, and that there is no political democracy in Spain today?

There are many matters about which I can be fairly questioned in the House, but the movements of President Eisenhower or the head of the German Government are not matters about which it is fair to question me. I doubt whether it would be wise or expedient to make the representations which the hon. Lady suggests

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the inclusion of Spain in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be not only an affront to the deeply-held convictions of many millions of people in countries which are members of that Organisation, but also inconsistent with the terms of the Treaty itself?

The question which I was asked was, "What representations have been made?", and the question of membership of N.A.T.O. is a matter for all the members of that Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of Great Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what official proposals for the increase of that contribution have been put forward by the United States of America.

The estimated United Kingdom contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation budgets for 1959–60 is £2,120,000. No proposals for its increase have been put forward by the United States.

Is it not a fact that President Eisenhower has said that the allies of the United States in N.A.T.O. will have to make a greater contribution in the future? Can the hon. Member give an assurance that when that request is received there will be no further increase in the United Kingdom contribution, at least until there has been a Summit Conference?

As my right hon. Friend made clear in the debate on the Address, we regard this matter as of first importance and are ready to discuss it. But it is a matter for discussion when the Ministers meet towards the end of next month.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that defects in the port facilities at Aberdeen harbour threaten to increase unemployment there; and if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to planning a means of rectifying the defects and averting the threat of increased unemployment there.

I am in touch with my colleagues who are examining, with the Harbour Commissioners, the question of pontoon dock facilities at Aberdeen. It is too soon to assume that any changes which may be necessary will result in a reduction in employment.

Is not the Minister aware that Aberdeen has been waiting for rectification of these matters for a long time? Further, is he aware that Aberdeen has unduly high unemployment, and lacks industry, and will he again consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to seeing that something is done for Aberdeen in these matters?

There was a meeting of representatives of the Harbour Commissioners, the Ministry of Transport, the Admiralty and the Scottish Home Department on 5th November, and various possibilities are now being pursued.

asked the Minister of Labour the amount of unemployment in the County of Dorset as a whole, and in the Bridport area in particular; and how this compares with the national average.

At 12th October, the number of persons registered as unemployed in the County of Dorset was 1,713, of whom 117 were registered at the Bridport Employment Exchange. The unemployment percentage rate for each of these areas was 1·9, the same as for Great Britain as a whole.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. Will he continue to watch the situation, in view of seasonal unemployment in the Bridport area?

indicated assent.