asked the Minister of Health what percentage of money under his Department's vote is allocated to cancer research.

Cancer research in the National Health Service is carried on in the course of treating patients. It is therefore impossible to estimate the expenditure on it separately.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that the Government spend very little money generally on cancer research and that most of it comes in voluntary contributions from the British Empire Cancer Campaign and other funds? Would not my right hon. Friend consider a greater allocation from Government sources to this very worth-while research and a possible reduction in spending by other Government Departments, say on the British Council, in order to increase the money available for this purpose?

My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that his Question referred to my Department's Vote. The main Government contribution to this purpose is under the Vote of the Medical Research Council and that has been steadily and rapidly increasing.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased Press advertising of cigarettes from £1,400,000 during the first nine months of 1959 to £2,200,000 in 1960 and the increased expenditure on tobacco from £274 million in the third quarter of 1959 to £301 million in 1960, he will take further steps to publicise the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the greatly increased recent expenditure on tobacco advertisement, some of which is directly aimed at teenagers; and whether he will take powers to control advertising of this type.

asked the Minister of Health what recent further action he has taken to further the campaigns of the local health authorities which are aimed at discouraging young people from smoking; and what success these campaigns are having.

There is good evidence that people in this country are widely aware of the risks involved in smoking. The health education measures of local authorities are largely directed to the young and should ensure that this awareness is maintained and intensified. I consider this approach to the problem is the right one.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the efforts of local health authorities to educate children in this matter and to persuade them not to start smoking are completely overwhelmed by the fantastic amount spent, as indicated in the Question I put to him? Does it not show that smoking has gone mad, and that the Government must do a little more about it than they are doing?

I have no reason to think that the facts are not reaching the public, and not reaching the younger members of the public, but they must be regarded as responsible people who take their own decisions.

Every day we see propaganda on behalf of the tobacco interests directed at young people. I asked the Minister a similar question last week about another matter. Can he tell us what form his propaganda is taking to counter the pernicious effects of the business interests?

Local health authorities have their methods of local health education, and material of all kinds is provided by my Department for their assistance.

In view of the recent report of the Joint Tuberculosis Council on this subject, and also the results of the inquiry in the City of Edinburgh on the effect of local authority propaganda, will the Minister look at this question again and, instead of passing the buck to local authorities, see if he can take direct action from his Department.

There is no question of passing the buck. This is the responsibility of local authorities. The evidence obtained from surveys is that the public are widely aware of the effects of this matter.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the possible danger to human health arising from the import of tortoises that have been exposed to radioactivity; and what steps are taken to ensure that these animals, on their arrival in Great Britain, are free from this and other infections.

I am advised that there is no hazard from radioactivity from imported tortoises—[Laughter.]—and no evidence of infection arising from them which would justify control measures.

Quite apart from the question of cruelty to these animals—which is not funny, but which is perhaps not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman—is he aware that the reassuring Answer that he has given is completely contrary to the opinion expressed by the Director of the Medical Research Council's Radiobiological Research Unit at Harwell?

I have no evidence which leads me to think that there is danger from radioactivity in these tortoises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the point I put to him in my supplementary question? Will he look at it again?

Information from that as well as other sources has been obtained.

asked the Minister of Health arising from the new drug price agreement, of how many drugs the price will be directly negotiated, and what provision there is for the list to be expanded; whether the export price criterion remains the average export price; and whether the definition of new drugs lies within his control.

Negotiations will be opened at once on the prices of a few widely-used drugs which together account for nearly half the value of those satisfying the export price criterion. Other drugs in large demand by the Health Services will be considered from time to time. The export price criterion remains the weighted average export price. New drugs in this context are defined in the scheme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the major purchaser of these drugs in this country, he is in a position to drive a harder bargain with drug manufacturers than he appears to have done? In the light of the very considerable criticisms that were made by the Public Accounts Committee, does he not think that at least he could have obtained the lowest export price as the export price criterion?

No. I do not think that it would be right to accept the lowest export price, in view of the fact that there will be instances where, with small quantities, an abnormally law price is quoted on an export contract.

Will the Minister give an assurance that these arrangements will not prevent any hospital group or region from buying drugs on the Continent if that group or region so wishes?

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Answer to an earlier Question.

asked the Minister of Health on what date he reached agreement with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on the renewal of the voluntary price regulation scheme; and what savings he estimates will result from the modifications on the basis of current expenditure on drugs.

On 14th December. The savings cannot yet be estimated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one cannot help being a little bit suspicious about the timing, since last Monday he was unable to tell me even what the proposed changes were but on Wednesday a Question, perhaps inspired, was put down by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and answered on Thursday; but I will do my best to submerge the suspicions that arise. Can he give no estimate whatever of the savings that will be made as a result of these changes? Surely, some calculations must have been done by the Department?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need hesitate to submerge his suspicions. No decision had been taken on this matter until 14th December, and before that time there was nothing that I could tell the House. The reason why I cannot yet estimate the savings is that, as I told the hon. Gentleman in answer to a previous Question, the negotiations which the new agreement will make possible have not yet begun.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that contributions have now been made by the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and many other countries to the malaria eradication fund of the World Health Organisation, Her Majesty's Government will now reconsider their decision to make no contribution.

No, Sir. The Government remain convinced that the campaign to eradicate malaria should be maintained on the regular budget of the World Health Organisation, to which our contribution is the third in size.

Has the Minister seen the statement of the Director-General of the World Health Organisation that it is technically possible to eradicate the malaria-bearing mosquito within a few years, and that if this special campaign fails it will only be for lack of funds? Is he aware that many other nations have contributed to this special fund, and that some of them are much poorer than we are? Will he reconsider his decision? Does not he think that it is an exciting, worth-while project that should succeed, and that the Government should do something extra to help it along?

I have made an inquiry into the matter and I am advised that there is no question of this work being held up through lack of funds. The Executive Board of the World Health Organisation is recommending to the Conference, when it meets next February, that more and more of this expenditure should be brought on to the regular budget, and that the Government believe to be right.

Does the Minister think that in the African countries which are malaria-ridden our reputation is enhanced by our refusal to give one penny to the ad hoc malaria eradication fund?

The World Health Organisation ought itself to be the means of deciding the channelling of funds to its various purposes and, as I have reminded the House, we are the third largest subscriber to that Organisation.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the considerable activity of the Ross Institute in this respect?

Will the Minister propose, in the Assembly of the W.H.O., that the budget shall be increased by an amount adequate to eradicate malaria?

Again I must say that I am not aware that the funds available for this campaign are the limiting factor. My advice is that they are not.

Is not that contrary to the evidence of many people who are principally concerned, given in the last few months?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in arranging the transfer of Ronald Meloy from a Bognor hospital to a Dartford hospital, to enable this badly-disabled youth to be near his friends and relatives.

I was informed last week that Ronald Meloy will be transferred to a hospital near his home on a day to be arranged.

Is the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend aware that this is the best Christmas box that the Meloy family and their friends could possibly have? I have just seen the father in the Central Lobby and I am sure that he would like me to thank the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman for all they have done to get him this wonderful Christmas gift.

asked the Minister of Health how many citizens of India, Pakistan, West Africa and the West Indies, respectively, occupy junior medical officer posts in hospitals; and what percentage these doctors form of the total number of hospital junior medical officers.

I regret this information is not available.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the valuable services given by these citizens to this country is partially hiding the shortage of English-born and English-trained doctors in the hospital services? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking in conjunction with the University Grants Committee to stimulate an increase in the supply of doctors both in training and taken into the service in a few years' time?

I agree that these doctors furnish very valuable help, though of course in return a good deal of training which is valuable to them later on in their own countries is obtained. My information is that the number of medical students is on the increase.

In view of the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given me about the disproportionate number of women who are refused admission to the London medical schools, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether there is any follow-up of these very bright students who would make good doctors, in order to see that they are found vacancies in other hospitals and are not lost to the profession?

I should like to consider that in detail if the right hon. Lady will allow me.

asked the Minister of Health (1) what action has been taken in the case of the doctor responsible for prescribing an overdose of xylocaine, equivalent to almost three times the normal dose for a child of four years of age, to Christopher Disley, who died in St. Andrew's Hospital, Billericay, as a result of the overdose given to relieve the pain of a fractured wrist;

A claim against the doctor by the father has been made and settled. The doctor had already resigned before the accident and his resignation took effect shortly after. As a result of the accident, fresh guidance on local analgesics by the Group Medical Advisory Committee has been brought to the notice of all medical staff in the Group. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the manufacturers' instructions.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can say whether the doctor who made this elementary and fatal mistake will be given refresher training in the safe use of drugs like xylocaine before he is allowed to prescribe them again? Can my right hon. Friend say whether any hospital to which this doctor may be appointed will be given notice of his present inexperience?

I have not got the information that my hon. Friend asks for, but it is the duty of boards and committees to acquaint themselves with the qualifications and record of anyone whom they consider appointing.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is extremely difficult for boards and committees to acquaint themselves with the record of people they are appointing and that matters of this kind are very seldom referred to in references from previous employers?

But it is the duty of these authorities to assure themselves that the references they obtain are adequate to ensure that they are aware of the qualifications and the records of the people they are appointing.

asked the Minister of Health to what extent hospitals buy drugs from the Continent rather than British and American drugs; and what savings are effected thereby.

Purchases of drugs from overseas by hospitals are very small. I regret that precise totals are not available.

In view of the fact that expenditure by hospitals on drugs amounts to about £13 million a year at the moment, will the Minister at least encourage hospitals to buy their drugs on the Continent if in that way they can save public funds?

Of course, these purchases are likely to raise questions of royalties and other matters arising out of the Patent Acts.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the long-term effect which the action which is being urged on him could have on the future of the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the light of the conclusions reached in paragraphs 257 and 258 of the Hinchliffe Committee's Report, which stress the importance of patent protection to the country's export markets, the discovery of new drugs, and the cost of prescribing?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very complex matter, and that a one-sided view must not be taken of it.

Is the Minister aware that the Crown has very important powers under the Patents Act, 1949, which should induce him not to be too afraid of what the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has just said?

The points which my hon. Friend has made are some of the considerations, but not all of them.

asked the Minister of Health the average length of time which elapses between a regional hospital board approving a building project and the commencement of the actual building work.

The dates of approval by boards do not come to my knowledge.

Is it not a pity that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers did not tell him that this summer was a wet one so that under-spending on the hospital building programme could have been to some extent anticipated? Is he not aware that a hospital in my area which wants to put up a changing room for nurses will not be able to do so because of the re-allocation due to under-spending? Should not he have taken action much earlier?

I will be glad to look at the instance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

In view of the fact that every hon. Member has a right to come to the Minister to ask him about lapses of time between the initial approval and the starting of the building, is it not a little curious that he is never given any information about the approval in the first place?

Some of the projects do not require action on my part, so the approval by a board does not come to my official knowledge at all. But where the project does require my approval, as I say, I am not aware of the date on which the board approves the project.

asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to provide more convalescent homes and accommodation for elderly patients after their hospital treatment; if he is aware of difficulties in finding such accommodation; and approximately how much of this accommodation is available for this type of ex-patient in the North-Eastern Hospital Board region.

In the North East Metropolitan Region about 150 convalescent beds are normally occupied by elderly patients. There are no figures to show how many elderly convalescents are in accommodation provided by the local authorities. Arrangements for convalescent accommodation are to be improved following a recent working party report.

Is not the hon. Lady aware that in some cases where the patients are over a certain age they are rejected by convalescent homes? Cannot something be done to try to persuade these institutions to allow elderly patients to be received for convalescent purposes, and not barred?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably referring to voluntary convalescent homes, though it is true that some of these are used on a contractual basis by regional boards. We are following up this question of the adequacy of convalescent accommodation, and I will certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consult with Mr. Hammarskjoeld about action to be taken in view of the campaign of one political party in the South Cameroons that wants independence from Nigeria and the Cameroon Republic and is urging the electorate to spoil their ballot papers.

The United Nations has charged Her Majesty's Government, as the administering authority, with the responsibility for conducting the plebiscite in the Cameroons on the basis of the political choices laid down by the General Assembly, as well as for ensuring that the people there are aware of the reasons why the plebiscite is being held. This will be done during the "enlightenment campaign" to be held in January.

Although the economic development of the South Cameroons will probably be best served by that country becoming a self-governing region of the Federation of Nigeria, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably a large number of Cameroonians who want union neither with Nigeria nor with the Cameroon Republic? What are they to do?

This has been laid down by the United Nations Assembly, and the electors must make up their own minds about the choice they make.

Is it too late for the United Nations to consider this matter again? Is it not curious that, the trusteeship having been brought to an end, this territory is not being offered a chance to choose complete independence?

The actual details of the matter are for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary but, as I understand it, the arrangements are now firmly made.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the contribution pledged by this country to the United Nations Organisation to meet the cost of the Gaza Strip Operation; whether it has yet been paid; what contributions by other countries, including Russia, are outstanding; and what are their amounts.

As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is there not an increasing tendency for rather vocal members of the United Nations not to pay their dues? Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that the Soviet Union, which, I believe, has not paid on this occasion, should not have done so in view of its alleged sympathy for the Arabs at the United Nations?

I would have to examine all these figures very carefully in order to produce a graph which indicated tendencies. A large number of these contributions are not paid. I cannot explain the reason why the Soviet Union does not pay some of its dues.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations a revision of the practice under which the Human Rights Commission does not discuss or take action regarding alleged violations of human rights in particular countries, since this practice tends to diminish the usefulness of the Commission by preventing it from taking cognisance of all alleged violations wherever they occur.

No, Sir. The present practice has obtained since 1947 when the Human Rights Commission recognised that it had no power to take any action in regard to complaints concerning human rights in particular countries. This principle was approved by the Economic and Social Council at the time and has, as recently as 1959, been restated by the Commission and reapproved unanimously by the Council.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that only a few years ago the Commission on Human Rights began a new programme described as a "programme of concrete action"? How can any concrete action be taken usefully if the Commission cannot even discuss alleged violations of human rights, such as allegations of French atrocities in Algeria or whatever they may be?

There is quite a profitable sphere open for the Commission's work. That is a matter for the Commission, which less than a year ago decided that it did not want to make this change.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will bring to the attention of Mr. Hammarskjoeld the reluctance of the United Nations troops in Stanleyville to endeavour to keep order or protect citizens of the United Kingdom and of other countries from being maltreated by Congolese soldiers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the outbreak of violence at Stanleyville in the Congo, in the course of which Miss Daphne Parks, of Her Majesty's Embassy in Leopoldville, was among those maltreated; and what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in concert with other countries affected to seek redress.

Early on the morning of 27th November the European residents of Stanleyville were rounded up by Congolese soldiers, ostensibly for the purpose of checking identity documents, and some were subject to humiliating treatment and detained. Miss Park, First Secretary at Her Majesty's Embassy at Leopoldville, arrived in Stanleyville that day. In spite of her diplomatic status she was detained for some hours with the other passengers at the airfield; she was searched and slapped several times by Congolese soldiers.

May I ask whether that protection is now really being provided? Will my right hon. Friend watch the situation lest any sudden withdrawal of national contingents from the United Nations Force should jeopardise British lives?

Yes, Sir. I understand that these responsibilities are now being carried out by the troops in Stanleyville. We will, of course, watch the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Are Her Majesty's Government making any proposals for strengthening the contribution of the United Nations in the Congo, or any proposal at the United Nations for the handling of the Congo situation?

There is a Question later on the Order Paper on the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman in the latter part of that supplementary question. The matter of the United Nations Force in the Congo has always been handled by Mr. Hammarskjoeld, and we have always offered any influence that we can to meet his requirements.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have submitted to the United Nations General Assembly for the resumption of disarmament negotiations, either in the Ten-Nation Committee or in some other body.

Her Majesty's Government have joined in sponsoring a Resolution recommending various principles which should guide disarmament negotiations and urging that negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible. In addition, the United Kingdom delegate has tabled a Resolution setting out the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the establishment of expert study groups, and recommending their appointment with the minimum of delay.

The Minister will be aware that there have been other proposals that the Committee of Ten should be extended to a committee of fifteen. Will he assure us that he will not take up an inflexible attitude on machinery since disarmament is, of course, the prime purpose?

We are not in the least inflexible, as I think the action we have taken at the United Nations shows and as an Answer to a Question shortly to be reached will demonstrate. I think that the proposals mentioned by the hon. Member are a complete change in the nature of the Ten-Power Committee and we have said that we are prepared to consider such changes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the negotiations in Geneva in the Committee of Ten, we shall propose drastic changes in its composition in order to bring in some of the so-called neutral or uncommitted voices?

I am answering a Question about that a little later.

asked the Lord Privy Seal for which nominations for the non-permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations the United Kingdom delegation voted; which were elected; and how many votes each received in the last ballots when votes were recorded.

The ballots for these elections are secret and I cannot therefore reveal how the United Kingdom delegation voted.

In view of the fact that The Times and many other newspapers have given details of these votes, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny that the British vote was given for Portugal, which denies all our democratic principles both in Portugal and in its colonial administration?

With great respect to the hon. Member, I think he is mistaken in saying that a newspaper published the details of these votes, because they are not published in the United Nations. There were seven ballots in the particular case he has mentioned, and I do not think anyone has given the details of those ballots. It was well known, of course, that we were broadly in support of Portugal, and we did so under the arrangement by which each area of the world supports a particular country that is generally agreed. We adhered to that arrangement.

Is it not increasingly obvious that all these so-called gentlemen's agreements, frequently honoured in the breach by Her Majesty's Government in the case of the East European seat, are totally out of date and that we shall get no order in the Security Council until the Peking Government is seated there and the Afro-Asian countries get the representation which they deserve in the light of their position in the Assembly?

That is a much wider question.

Did the British Government give their vote to Portugal in return for the vote Portugal gave us on the resolution on South-West Africa yesterday when we were in a minority of three? How does the Minister explain this link-up in a situation in which he as a member of the Government promised us that the Government would take action in the United Nations and then failed to vote yesterday?

That is a different question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it was with the authority and consent of the Security Council that Mr. Lumumba was arrested in the Congo; and how the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council voted on this matter.

The arrest of Mr. Lumumba was an internal Congolese matter which did not derive from any action of the Security Council. The United Kingdom voted against Russian and Polish resolutions which inter alia called for the release of Mr. Lumumba. These resolutions were rejected by the Council.

Is it not intolerable that the Parliamentary immunity of any M.P.s in the Congo should be violated in this way by either side? Is it not clear that constitutional government cannot be restored in the Congo until there has been the release of Mr. Lumumba and the recall of Parliament, as advocated by moderate neutrals such as Nigeria and Ceylon? Will not the Government co-operate with those neutral nations to this end, as the first step towards getting new constitutional talks among all the leaders in the Congo?

I understand that Mr. Lumumba was arrested on the fiat of Mr. Kasavubu, the head of State, and that it was on charges which his Parliamentary immunity did not cover. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh"] That is what I understand. It is not for me to decide what the law of the Congo is, but I understand that that is the position. As for a meeting of the Parliament, I have no doubt that when law and order and stability are restored in the Congo, it will be a very good thing for the Parliament to meet.

Will the Minister tell us the source from which he has obtained his facts?

I will certainly make them available to the hon. Member if he wants them.

Is it not clear that law and order can be restored in the Congo only by the United Nations putting its strength behind the constitutional authority and that by this policy of nonintervention it is allowing the situation to drift until there is a danger of civil war breaking out? Is it not a question of the United Nations making up its mind on the correct constitutional policy? Will not the Government co-operate with the moderate neutral nations in their assessment of the situation?

The United Nations has made up its mind on the correct constitutional authority by seating the head of State, President Kasavubu. Apart from that, there is obvious confusion about the constitutional authority in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how Her Majesty's Government voted at the United Nations General Assembly on 14th December, 1960, on the resolution calling for United Nations supervision of the referendum in Algeria.

This resolution, the text of which is in United Nations document No. A/C.1/L.265 of 9th December, was put to the vote in the First Committee on the 15th of December. The United Kingdom delegation voted against it.

Will not the Minister agree that, after seven years of bitter war in Algeria, a peaceful solution should be sought through the United Nations? Will he not agree that the resolution against which we voted was in complete conformity with Article 17 of the Charter, to which this Government have subscribed? Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the Acting-Secretary of State in the new Administration in America, in reply to American trade unions, in which he states that the solution of the Algerian problem can be achieved only by self-determination? In the light of these facts, how do we justify voting against such a resolution?

We have devoted all our efforts to trying to find a reasonable and peaceful solution, and we shall continue to do so. It is the acknowledged effort of General de Gaulle to achieve a solution through self-determination, but we were quite certain that this resolution, which would impose a referendum on Algeria against the wishes of the French Government and which the United Nations had no power to impose, was certainly not the best way of getting it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how Her Majesty's Government voted at the United Nations on 14th December, 1960, on the resolution embodying a declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.

The United Kingdom abstained on the Afro-Asian draft declaration.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in The Times of 15th December which stated that the Prime Minister intervened to get the support of President Eisenhower when the American Government had intended to vote for the resolution? Is he aware that we are in bad company here and that we abstained with Portugal, Spain and South Africa? May I remind him that this resolution followed the defeat of the Soviet Union's amendment and made no reference whatever to Colonialism? Is he aware that it is a very moderate resolution along lines to which all parties in the House have been subscribing for many years?

In abstaining on this resolution we did what we believed to be right, and I am sure that the United States did the same.

In view of the Government's lamentable record in the United Nations this session, is it not high time that our policy was reviewed? How does the Minister explain this series of abstentions, the latest of which was yesterday, when a resolution was carried by 90 voles to none, with three abstentions, of whom we were one, deprecating the policy of apartheid in South Africa? Why could not the Government vote for that, having accepted the Motion in the House on Thursday?

The Question which I am answering is about a completely different resolution, and I do not propose to answer questions about yesterday's debate. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite could have supported many of the statements in the Afro-Asian resolution on colonialism, on which we abstained.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are getting very tired of seeing these resolutions which are sponsored and supported by Russia, in which we are put on the defensive, when nothing is said about Hungary and similar matters? Is he aware that we are continually put on the defensive at the United Nations by these ridiculous resolutions?

Is not the Minister aware that I am not raising only the question of yesterday's debate but the whole question of the Government's policy on these resolutions and that—

Order. That is all out of order, because it raises a very different question.

I am raising the lack of consistency on the Government's part. They were very willing to condemn what happened in Hungary, and did so when the motion was put on the agenda, but they fail to condemn other nations in a similar state. What is the reason for this inconsistency? The Government supporters may have a bad conscience, but that will not prevent the facts from coming out.

We certainly cannot accept that the resolution on which we abstained deals with countries in a similar state to that following the Russian attack on Hungary. There are very good reasons why we abstained on the Afro-Asian motion on colonialism, which was against the whole tenor of British colonial policy under many Administrations.

What is the difference—

Order. I call the Minister of Agriculture, to answer Questions Nos. 71 and 74.