asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the hardship caused by the fall in the value of money in the last fifteen years, he will make representations to the Sudanese Government to increase the pensions of former British Members of the Sudan Civil Service to the same extent as has taken place under the United Kingdom Pension's Increase Act of 1959.

Her Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions represented to the Sudan Government that it would be equitable to grant an increase in the pensions of former British members of the Sudan Civil Service. The latest approach was on 9th June when Her Majesty's Ambassador in Khartoum communicated to the Sudan Government the text of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act of 1959 with illustrative examples. I understand that the Sudan Government are still considering the matter.

In view of the fact that for many decades the Sudan was a condominium run by this country without the help of Egypt, and in view of the fact that 'we scoured some of the main universities to produce some of their best graduates for this service, does my right hon. and learned Friend adhere to the view he expressed in a letter of 12th March that Her Majesty's Government have no responsibilities as regards this fine service?

I certainly could not agree that we have no responsibilities as regards that fine service. I would rather be reminded of the whole of my letter before I make further comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what is the estimated cost of printing as a White Paper the verbatim records of the Committee of Ten Nations on Disarmament for the period 15th March to 29th April;

The cost to the Stationery Office of printing these records as a White Paper would be about £1,512. That sum would have to be increased if the records up to yesterday are also published. In the circumstances, however, I think it would be the wish of the House that the verbatim records of the whole conference to date should be published as a White Paper. I will arrange for this to be done as quickly as possible.

May I express my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for that Answer and, lest he or any hon. Member should think that this is somewhat inappropriate, may I remind him that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed me the other day that we spend £4,000 a week printing the records of this House? I think this expenditure, in view of the gravity of the issues, would be well justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress made at the Ten-Power Disarmament Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the Ten-Nation talks in Geneva on disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Ten-Nation Disarmament Conference.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House yesterday, we very much deplore the action of the Soviet and other Eastern delegations in walking out of the Geneva Conference and refusing to participate any longer in these discussions. This was particularly regrettable when, as the Soviet delegate knew, important new proposals were about to be presented. The House will remember that on 7th June the Soviet Government had presented new proposals completely different from the plan of September, 1959. These new proposals had to be discussed carefully in detail between the five Western Governments immediately concerned.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he will consider asking for the convocation of an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly in order to get the disarmament discussions started again, perhaps in a forum better suited in composition and procedure than the Ten-Nation Committee? Secondly, can he assure us that he will use the Government's utmost influence to prevent any acceleration in the arms race, and particularly that he will oppose any resumption of atomic tests by any Western country and any further distribution of atomic missiles?

With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, there are a number of possibilities—the Security Council, the possibility of an emergency session of the Assembly, and the possibility of the Disarmament Commission, which consists of the full membership of the United Nations. There is also the possibility of a resumption at Geneva. All these possibilities are being considered.

While the latest American proposals are not fundamentally much different from the proposals put forward on 7th June by the Soviet Government, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Government are not committed to the American proposals for on-site inspection of nuclear delivery systems, without any reduction in their numbers? Have not the Soviet Government constantly made it clear that they will never accept control without a measure of disarmament?

I think that in the new American proposals there is a considerable advance in the field of disarmament. For example, as regards force levels, the figure has come down to 2·1 million in the first stage and to 1·7 million in the second stage. In fact that is the same figure as in the second stage of the latest Soviet proposals. So I think there is a measure of disarmament which is now being reached in the first stage, which we welcome. I quite agree that it is improbable that full control would be accepted by the Soviet Government in advance of real disarmament, and what we all want to try to do is to get the two things going pari passu.

While regretting the manner and timing of the Russian walkout, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Russians have not made a great advance by accepting in substance the proposals put forward by M. Moch on behalf of the French Government, which, I understand, have been accepted in principle by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The Americans then went away and came back with a plan which was really very little different from their old plan, if we can judge by a report in The Times, which substantially, in the first stage, still has inspection and control without any effective disarmament.

I am glad that the hon. Member asked that question about M. Moch's proposals, because M. Moch stated categorically that it was totally inexact to assert that the Soviet plan embodied the French ideas on means of delivery. I am glad to be able to make that perfectly clear. M. Moch could not have been firmer about it. In fact, they do not embody the French plan. The French proposals with regard to means of delivery go through certain stages—study, control, reduction and elimination. No one can say that the Russian plan goes through those stages, because within a year they propose to abolish and destroy everything, which I do not think is practical politics. I do not think anyone believes that it is practical politics to do that in one year.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to reach any worth-while conclusions on disarmament if he excludes China from his exchanges and talks?

I thought I made it very clear in my speech in the debate on 30th May that I believe that before we get a realistic disarmament conference, China has got to come in. That is one respect, in which, I think, the American plan goes some way to meet that point of view.

Will the Foreign Secretary clarify one point in his statement? I was not quite clear about the proposals put forward by the United States Government on their own behalf on Monday. Have these proposals, which have appeared substantially in the Press, already been agreed by the British and French Governments as a common Western position, or is some negotiation still possible on this issue?

I am glad that the hon. Member asked that question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a Question yesterday, and possibly there was some misunderstanding both about the hon. Member's question, which dealt with some reply to the Soviet proposals, and also about this matter of agreement. What happened was that on Friday, 24th June, the American proposals were circulated to the four Western allies. I examined them on Sunday afternoon when I came back from Austria and authorised the Minister of State to say that we welcomed them and would support them, but that there was, of course, a need for discussion of the details and it might well be that there would be some alterations or improvements. There was also a meeting in Geneva the same day at which I think the proposals generally received a welcome from the four Western countries. They would then have been further examined on the Monday. No doubt the N.A.T.O. Council would have been consulted. We hoped that in the course of this week it would be possible to put forward an agreed Western plan. Unfortunately, the action of the Soviet Union on Monday morning made the whole of that process impossible, but I think that there will certainly be further discussion of the actual details.

The Prime Minister, then, was incorrect in saying yesterday that these were agreed Western proposals? May I take it that the Government and the other four Western Powers are not yet tied to every detail in them?

That is so. He asked me to make it clear that when he said that they were agreed, that was not correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD a statement showing what armaments and military equipment of various kinds have been exported to Israel, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, and Lebanon in the past two years; and what exports of these kinds are contemplated in the near future.

No, Sir. It is not the practice to disclose information about arms supplies to foreign Governments.

Could the Foreign Secretary at least say in a general way whether this traffic is continuing unabated or whether there has been some lull, on each side, in recent months or years? Would it not be a sensible thing, short of the remoter possibility of general disarmament, to start with an agreement to limit arms supplies to these danger areas of the world?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in an Answer he gave last January, tried to set out the general considerations to which we adhere. I think I can say to the hon. Member that my feeling is that the arms traffic, as he calls it, has to some extent abated. I agree that it is very necessary for all concerned to exercise restraint in this kind of area.

In view of the confused situation in Iraq, can the Foreign Secretary say whether we are still exporting arms to that country?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative at the disarmament talks to propose that the existing nuclear Powers should undertake not to release nuclear weapons to other nations.

I have little to add to the Answer given on 27th June to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson). If, as we still hope, disarmament discussions can be resumed, this subject is likely to come up then.

Following the breakdown of the talks, will the Government make this proposal to the other nuclear Powers? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary approve of the recent statement by General Norstad that tactical nuclear weapons should be given to Norway?

I do not think there is any question of giving nuclear warheads to any of the N.A.T.O. countries. We are, of course, against the spread of nuclear weapons in that sense.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the dangers of war or nuclear explosions arising from accidents, miscalculations, or muddles, if he will propose to the Governments of the Powers possessing nuclear weapons a temporary international agreement to discontinue patrol flights of aeroplanes carrying nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of a disarmament treaty.

No, Sir. The dangers mentioned can only be dealt with effectively by an international agreement on general and comprehensive disarmament under effective control, such as we have been trying to secure at Geneva.

Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that the conduct by both sides of patrol flights by planes carrying nuclear weapons is itself a source of anxiety and tension? Would it not be a moderate step towards some relaxation of tension to try to get an international agreement to stop these flights?

The difficulty about it is that I do not think it would be possible to have any control of such an agreement and also it would leave the long-range missiles completely unaffected.

Does the Foreign Secretary really think that it would add to our safety to agree that all our aeroplanes should remain as sitting ducks on aerodromes?

As quite often happens, I agree with the hon. and learned Member.

Would the Foreign Secretary consider letting the House have a study of the danger of accident with these new weapons? Does he not agree that Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who made the first atomic bomb, said in Berlin two weeks ago that the new weapons developing were now adding chance to anger as a possible cause of war?

I should have to consider whether a study could or should be made, and whether it would be useful to disclose its result.

Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that if everybody's planes on both sides were "sitting ducks", they would all be in the same case and the world would be a lot safer?

But rockets come into it then.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the nations whose representatives were to have joined him in the abortive summit meeting to join him in an investigation into the respective manufacturers who profit by war and by preparations for war, with a view to those nations joining in international control of such manufacturers.

No, Sir. The scale and nature of arms production is controlled not by the manufacturers but by orders from Governments. The first essential is therefore to obtain an international disarmament agreement between Governments, as we have been trying to do.

Is it not a fact that the efforts of the Government, in conjunction with other Governments, up to the present to ascertain and control the causes of war have failed? Does the Minister agree that the suggestion contained in my Question strikes at one of the root causes of war, and offers a means of controlling and preventing future wars? Will he, therefore, reconsider his Answer and adopt the suggestion?

I think that is an old-fashioned idea. I think it is nowadays the Governments, not the arms manufacturers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a United Nations air surveillance should be created, to detect preparations for attack, to be operated in the territories of all nations.

Her Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to any practicable proposals that may be put forward to reduce the danger of surprise attack. We have consistently supported the concept of "open skies" and will continue to do so.

Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that this proposal would be more likely to receive the acceptance of the Soviet Government if it were accompanied by a substantial measure of disarmament?

I quite agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official arrangements have been made for a visit to this country by the Chinese Premier, Mr. Chou En-Lai.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider such a visit, in view of the fact, as I am sure he will agree, that relations with China are very friendly, and, in these circumstances, it is usual for Heads of States to visit one another from time to time? Does he not feel that it would be rather embarrassing if we should leave the initiative to Field Marshal Lord Montgomery?

I think, to be quite frank with the House, that this visit would need a good deal of preparation, but, in any case, I did not think that this kind of personal diplomacy was quite so much in favour at the moment.

In view of the fact that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, arising out of his visit to China, has reported that Mr. Chou En-Lai is a very fine man, of peaceful disposition, would it not be wise to invite him here?

Field Marshal Lord Montgomery's views will, of course, be taken in to consideration and given due weight.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) why he has invited the Foreign Minister of Spain to the United Kingdom; and

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the impending visit of the Spanish Foreign Minister, and the matters to be discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the business to be discussed with the Foreign Minister of Spanish Affairs; and whether the possibility of Spain entering into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be a matter for discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made for the visit of the Spanish Foreign Minister to Great Britain; what is the purpose of this visit; and what representations and protests he has received in this connection.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent proposals have been received, and from which Governments, to admit Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The purpose of the Spanish Foreign Minister's visit and my reason for inviting him is to improve our relations with Spain. I shall discuss with him the international situation but it will not be the occasion for formal negotiations. The question of Spanish membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has not arisen.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the overwhelming mass of the British people of all political parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—despite the shouts from the benches behind him, are very unhappy indeed about this visit and its implications? Will he take this opportunity of denying that there is any prospect of any defence arrangements being entered into between this country and Spain, and any question of Spain being admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to think very carefully about this matter. I do not think that it is wise to make internal systems or policies the test according to which we try to improve relations with a country. Secondly, we have had relations with the Spanish people; sometimes we have been enemies and sometimes we have been friends. We have many common interests. For instance, 350,000 British people went to Spain for their holidays last year. It seems quite reasonable to try to improve relations with that country. Thirdly, Señor Castiella will be coming as the guest of this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Señor Castiella is notorious for his anti-British views, that he was decorated by Hitler personally and that in 1951 his record was so bad that the Government of that day refused to accept him in this country as an ambassador? If he is to receive Señor Castiella, will he discuss with him the ferocious and barbarous military trials which continue to take place inside Spain and which are consistently reported in The Times, the last report being as recent as 22nd June?

I cannot intervene in what are internal Spanish matters. I met Señor Castiella when he came to this country last year. I did not find him anti-British. The incidents to which the hon. Member has referred happened many years ago. He is now Foreign Minister of Spain, and I intend to do the best I can to improve our relations with his country.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what the mass of the British people really wonder about are why some hon. Members opposite strain at the Spanish gnat while they are perfectly willing to swallow the Russian and Chinese camels whole?

Mention has been made of the deep feeling about this matter. I have had one letter of protest against the visit—on the ground that Señor Castiella represents a Roman Catholic country.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Herter, giving evidence before the United States Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that it was his opinion that Spain should be in N.A.T.O.? Is he further aware that the Foreign Secretary of Spain made a speech at Georgetown University in March this year in which he boasted of his military adventures on behalf of Hitler? Is he aware that in his written speech it is stated that he considered that Spain was still technically at war with the Soviet Union? Will the Foreign Secretary also bear in mind that the American trade union movement has placed on record its opposition to Mr. Herter's statement, and that this is the view of the whole trade union movement of the Western world? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] If the Government want to weaken N.A.T.O., the best way of so doing is to have any military alliance with Spain.

I said quite clearly in my original Answer that the question of Spain joining N.A.T.O. has not arisen and that Señor Castiella is not coming here for formal negotiations. The hon. Member seems to want me to take responsibility for the statements of a number of people for whom I am not responsible. I repeat that whatever is thought of the social system and of the interial policies of another country, that is not a reason why one should not seek to improve relations with it.

Is the Foreign Secretary further aware that at a meeting at Mérida, on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier, between Premier Salazar and General Franco on 21st and 22nd June, decisions were made to use the tragic atmosphere after the collapse of the Summit meeting for pushing the entry of Spain into N.A.T.O. and that Portugal and Spain intend to put these proposals to the British Government quite soon and hope to exert pressure for their acceptance? Will he take this opportunity to give the House an assurance that the British Government will resist any such pressure and any such proposals? Will he further affirm that—[Interruption.]—Spain is not to be admitted to an alliance of countries which are supposed to be dedicated to the defence of democracy and political freedom?

It is perhaps convenient at this point that I should remind the House that questions giving information are out of order. Some questions nowadays seem to give a lot of information.

I repeat my original Answer about this visit. As for, the future, I told the House in March that I certainly would not give any undertaking of that sort. We shall have to judge any such proposals in the conditions when they are made.

Has the Foreign Secretary read the text of the North Atlantic Treaty? If he has, is he aware that the Preamble specifically excludes Spain from qualification for membership? If the aim of the visit is to improve understanding between the two countries, will he inform the Spanish Foreign Minister that any Spanish application will be opposed by the British Government, not only on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Treaty, but also because it is profoundly repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the British people?

I do not believe that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct. On the former part, in any examination of a proposal of this sort, if and when it should be made, the terms of the Treaty would have to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement about the help given by this country to Chile since the recent disasters in that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total sum so far contributed by Her Majesty's Government towards relieving the distress caused by the recent Chilean earthquake; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a further contribution now that the needs of those affected have become apparent.

As I informed the House on 26th May, Her Majesty's Government gave an immediate grant of £10,000 to help with emergency relief. We were also able to arrange for a Royal Air Force Britannia, which was then in Argentina, to fly emergency supplies to Santiago. The British Council has contributed towards the cost of rebuilding a school. In addition, firms in this country and the general public have responded generously to appeals from private organisations. I understand that contributions to a fund opened by the Anglo-Chilean Society have now reached over £37,500 in cash and £24,500 in kind. The British Red Cross has so far sent over £18,000 to Chile. The total contribution from this country, therefore, so far amounts to over £90,000.

While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether last week's earthquake caused any particular damage and will result in requests for further aid?

The information at my disposal is that it did not, but I will confirm that.

In view of the recurrence of disasters of this kind all over the world, will the Foreign Secretary again consider a plan which was mooted before the war for the creation of an international united nations scheme for dealing with such events?

I certainly would like to examine the plan which was mooted before the war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take the initiative in proposing that the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Western Germany and the United States of America should organise a mutual aid scheme for the continent of Africa comparable to the Marshall Plan of 1947.

I sympathise very much with the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind. I doubt, however, whether a mutual aid scheme on the lines of the Marshall Plan is what is wanted. For one reason, the present position in Africa, where the economy needs developing, not restoring, is hardly comparable to that of Europe in 1947. But we are continually reviewing ways of helping Africa. In our support of the International Development Association we had Africa very much in mind and at present we are studying the proposal for co-operative action within the Commonwealth, which was made at the recent meeting in London of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the time for taking some very important initiatives may be limited? While appreciating the difficulties of the United States in an election year, may I ask if there is any reason why the British Government should not take the initiative with the French and German Governments to initiate discussions parallel to the Commonwealth discussions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred?

No. We are in touch with both those Governments on this matter, but the difficulty raised is not quite so much getting another organisation. It is getting resources on a sufficient scale. At present, quite apart from private capital, we are contributing about £35 million a year in one way and another. It is a question of where the resources are to come from. European Governments as well as the United States Government are well aware of the need, and a variety of methods are being studied.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, while Her Majesty's Government are giving independence to so many countries in Africa and are apparently ready to meet this request for aid, there is some danger that his colleagues may agree in the next few months to take away independence from the County of Rutland—

Order. The Foreign Office is responsible for some rather remote places, but I have not yet got Rutland into the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

On a point of order. I was just going on to ask if I could have mutual aid from the Foreign Secretary when the time comes to give it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now release Mr. Abdul Rahman al Baker and four other Bahraini citizens from detention in St. Helena.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now terminate the detention in St. Helena of Abdul Rahman al Baker and two other Bahraini citizens who were sentenced on 23rd December, 1956, to 14 years' imprisonment by the Ruler's Court of Bahrain.

The legality of the removal of these prisoners to St. Helena and their detention there has been upheld by a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now that this point has been established I am suggesting to all concerned that they should look again at this case.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his reply will give some satisfaction to this side of the House? Is he further aware that the circumstances in which these men were tried and convicted were completely inconsistent with the principles which govern British justice and that to intervene in any way in suppressing the political enemies of a foreign ruler is completely inconsistent with the general policy of disengagement, which I understand it is the Foreign Secretary's aim to follow in Middle East affairs?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in all the circumstances, if he will rest content with the latter part of my Answer, I will see what can be done.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his attitude in this matter, may I ask him to consider the possibility of appealing for clemency for these men, releasing them, and enabling them to seek political asylum, either here or wherever they may be able to find it?

Today, I must content myself with the last sentence of my Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes are proposed in the principles governing membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir.

May we take it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer that there will be no modification of the six basic freedoms on which N.A.T.O. was founded—freedom of the Press; freedom of speech and assembly; free elections; freedom of movement; freedom of worship, and the right to strike and the right to work? Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that none of these applies in Spain? Will he give a guarantee to the House that he will not support any alteration of N.A.T.O. which would permit the entry of Spain?

I will not express an opinion on part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He asked me what changes are proposed in the principles. My answer is that none is proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the meeting of the South-East Asian Treaty Powers.

The annual Council Meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation was held at Washington from 31st May to 2nd June. Members exchanged views on international developments affecting the Treaty area, and took stock of the work being done by the military and civil sides of the Organisation. The Council issued a communiqué, a copy of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the admission of China to the United Nations was discussed at this S.E.A.T.O. meeting? Is he aware that it is essential to the correcting of the Western posture in Asia to regularise the situation about China? Can he say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support the admission of China at the forthcoming General Assembly of the United Nations? Can he say whether, up to now, it is American obtuseness or the British Government's streak of cowardice that has prevented this going further?

There was a discussion in the Council about the position of China, and I have nothing to add today to what I have repeatedly said about our position on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America regarding action by either party in the event of a conflict between the Chinese Republic and the Government of Nationalist China.

No arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government for action in the event referred to in the Question.

Does that Answer imply that in the event of any conflict arising out of a dispute between Nationalist China and the Chinese People's Republic in which the United States in involved, we take no action whatever?

The right hon. Gentleman asked what arrangements had been made. The position is that no arrangements have been made, and we have no obligation or commitment of any kind to take military action for the defence of Quemoy, Matsu or Formosa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the reference, in paragraph 66 of the Report by the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam, to the lacuna created in the machinery for the implementation of the Geneva Agreement; and what action he proposes as a result of this Report.

Yes, Sir. This complicated question was referred to in paragraphs 7 and 43 of the Ninth Interim Report of the International Commission in Vietnam and communications were subsequently exchanged between the co-Chairmen. I am arranging for copies of these communications to be placed in the Library of the House. I do not propose to initiate any further action as a result of paragraph 66 of the Tenth Interim Report, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that for many years he has received copies of these Interim Reports? Within the last month, he has had the Tenth Interim Report from the International Commission for supervision and control. None of this machinery can be implemented unless some action is taken about this joint Commission. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made any effort, since the French High Command left, to replace that Command, and to insist that the Commission can carry on its job in South Vietnam, as was implied in paragraphs 30 and 32 of the Geneva Agreement of 1954? Otherwise, the Treaty means nothing.

I think that I can go with the hon. Gentleman as far as to say that it would probably have been preferable if, in 1956, this body had not fallen into disuse, but I do not think that, at the present time, it is practicable to revive it.