asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the proposals and arrangements made for the construction of the new central post office and sorting centre in the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and what consultations he has had in this connection with British Railways and the city council.

The new building will comprise a public office, a sorting office and a postal garage and workshop. The scheme has now been agreed both with the local authority and the British Transport Commission. I expect building work to start by the end of this year and to be completed by the late autumn of 1963.

asked the Postmaster-General why a latter, whose cover has been forwarded to him, which was posted in time for the 4 p.m. collection at Hill Road, Porchester, on Sunday, 5th February, was not delivered in Conduit Street, London, W.1, until 3.40 p.m. on Monday, 6th February.

This letter should have been delivered first post on Monday, 6th February. Enquiries have failed to establish the precise reason why it was delayed, but a shortage of staff in London, due to recruitment difficulties and influenza, may well have been a contributory factor. I am sorry about this failure of service and would assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our best to avoid a recurrence.

While thanking my hon. Friend for her gallant apology for the service, may I ask whether she will be good enough to ascertain whether this kind of delay does not happen rather more often than just this one occasion?

I do not wish to make excuses for the service, but we are doing our best to make it as efficient as possible

asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the public concern about the effects of certain television programmes on children's minds and habits, whether he will consult the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority with a view to introducing amending legislation to effect a censorship comparable with that applied in cinemas.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to amend the Television Act. 1954, in order to control the content matter of television programmes, in view of the un-Christian and anti-moral nature of many of the plays and their effect upon the increase in crime.

Both these Questions invite me to consider imposing some form of censorship over television programmes through new legislation. I do not believe that the House would wish to see so radical a departure from our traditional policy of entrusting responsibility for programme content to the broadcasting authorities. If hon. Members feel that particular programmes are undesirable, I hope they will address complaints to the broadcasting authorities.

Is not the Postmaster-General aware that a ridiculous and even farcical situation is developing? Now the Television Authority is displaying at peak family viewing hours films which have been marked by the film censorship with an "X" certificate as unsuitable for children? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently in the Midlands some local councils exercised their censorship powers to try to ban the film "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" because of the bedroom scenes and it was promptly shown on Midland Television by the Television Authority? Does not this absurd situation call for some consideration by the Government and the Television Authority of the whole issue of censorship?

These Questions invite me to provide censorship not only for films but for television as well. It would be entirely wrong for me to legislate on matters of this kind in advance of the Report of the Pilkington Committee, which has these matters under consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that great concern exists among church and youth leaders who believe that the increase in juvenile delinquency is due in large degree to certain television programmes?

I am aware of that anxiety, but my view corresponds with that of the Home Secretary. I do not believe that one ought to accept that there is a connection between television programmes and crime.

While the right hon. Gentleman has a strong point, is not the solution not to impose censorship but to ensure that the motivation behind the programmes is genuinely to serve the viewers and not simply to maximise advertising revenues?

I think that is a rather unfair question, because recently there was a suggestion made to the Independent Television Authority by a programme company that the Graham Greene play "The Complaisant Lover" ought to be shown and the I.T.A. took another view and decided on certain cuts and the author has now sold the rights to the B.B.C.

Is the position not very complicated? Will not the Minister agree that the connection between juvenile deliquency and the sort of things we see on television and films is a matter of great expertise? How can the Postmaster-General be so sure that he has the right answer to it? How can any of us be so sure? Should not this be the subject of some inquiry?

That is precisely what it is.

Surely there must be an obligation upon a Minister, who is filling such an important post as the Postmaster-General, to have some regard to the matter my hon. Friend and other Members have raised in the House this afternoon? Does it not make absolute nonsense of censorship of films shown in cinemas if the same sort of thing, or even worse, can be exhibited in the home and become available to millions more than attend the cinema? I am appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to take serious note of what has been said in the House this afternoon and what is being said by serious-minded people who are concerned with the welfare of children. Can he bring the matter very purposefully to the notice of members of the Advisory Council?

I assure the House that I do not take these questions lightheartedly at all. There is, however, a distinct difference between the showing of films carrying an "X" certificate in the cinema and similar films on television. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"I Because a child is not allowed to see an "X" film in a cinema, whereas if "X" films were to be certificated in the Radio Times or T.V. Times undoubtedly there would be a temptation on the part of some children to see those programmes. At the end of the day I believe all this comes back to the question of parental control in the home.

On a point of order, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will urgently consider the introduction of legislation to restrict the control by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the television companies over the content of television programmes, in view of the fact that such programmes have endangered the rights of free speech and have influenced municipal and general elections.

No, Sir.

Is the Postmaster-General aware of the increasing opinion, which I share, that both on I.T.V. and the B.B.C., when dealing with fundamental questions, the working classes have lost freedom of speech? Is he aware that there is an increasing feeling that both are anti-Labour and anti-working class, and that although he has given the answer "No" today there will be a change in time?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements for political broadcasts flow from arrangements reached between the three major parties and the I.T.A. and B.B.C. Minority points of view can be expressed in T.V. programmes.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the reason for the proposed deferment of the provision of television services for the Western Isles, and North-West Highland mainland.

asked the Postmaster-General when television services will be provided in the North-West area of Scotland and the Outer Isles.

There has been no deferment here. Stage 2 of the B.B.C.'s satellite scheme, due to be finished by March, 1964, includes stations for Lewis and Skye. When these stations are working the B.B.C. can consider what additional stations for North-West Scotland and the Outer Isles are feasible.

The Minister imagines there has been no delay, but is he aware that local authorities have been under the impression that this phase would be completed in 1963 and that other areas such as the Southern Outer Hebrides will have to wait until completion of that phase before they can get on? Does the Minister appreciate the feeling that there is about the suspected, if not actual, intention of the B.B.C. to create a new delay?

The difficulty with the Lewis and Skye station is getting the television signal across from the mainland. The B.B.C. has surveyed the possibility of getting a signal from the Rosemarkie transmitter in Inverness, and results are being studied. The B.B.C. tells me that it hopes to start looking for possible sites in the future. As far as future stations are concerned, that is a matter for Stage 3 and not this one.

The Minister did not say when the north-west coast of Scotland would get a service. Even 1964 for the Islands is far too long. Surely these people should get a service before all these alternative services are given to people in other areas.

I will very gladly discuss that with the B.B.C.

asked the Postmaster-General how many cases of wilful damage to telephone kiosks in the Borough of Leyton were reported in 1960, compared with 1959; and what research has taken place into the possibility of attaching a device to telephone apparatus that would cause a bell to ring loudly when the apparatus or cables are violently treated.

I am sorry that separate figures for Leyton are not available. For the London Telecommunications Region as a whole, however, the figures are 5,400 in 1959, and nearly 10,000 in 1960. The suggestion of an alarm bell was examined last year as the hon. Member knows, but it was decided not to adopt it. In view, however, of the increase in vandalism I am now re-examining the matter.

Since fire alarms and burglar alarms on premises are relatively effective, might not the same device very well be attached to the doors of telephone kiosks? In view of what he says, can I hope that he will see his way to adopting the device?

The hon. Gentleman can certainly have hope that we shall adopt the device, but so far the best device we have been able to work out is one which, like the installation itself, may be subject to wilful damage.

Will not the Postmaster-General agree that many kiosks are old and out of date and that many new innovations, such as my hon. Friend has mentioned, should be introduced? Is he not aware that a new design was announced to the House as long ago as December, 1958? He approved the prototype several months ago and six were supposed to be coming into public use directly, but after a lapse of two years we have not seen one produced?

I will willingly show the hon. Gentleman the prototype we have in mind, but we are not ready to put it into general use.

asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to extend the radius of the 4d. call, especially in rural areas and among islands.

The area covered by the local call was greatly enlarged in 1958 to include many places to which calls were previously charged 6d., 9d., and 1s. Telephone users in rural areas and on Islands benefited from these reductions. The local call area is now greater than in almost any other country in the world, and I have no present plans to extend it further.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that his answer will give considerable dissatisfaction in my constituency because, while we are grateful for what has been done, we were promised by his predecessor that this was only a first step and that he had plans for extending still further the local call area, which would have been much appreciated? Does he appreciate that in certain islands this is a matter of some concern to local people, whose only link is by telephone and who unfortunately are now outside the radius?

The extension of the local call area was from an average of 80 square miles to an average of 900 square miles. People in the North of Scotland, and, indeed, in the Islands. have benefited from that change. If the hon. Member has any particular problem in the Islands—and I can see there are problems—I will gladly look into them.

On a point of order. Before we proceed to the Questions to the Lord Privy Seal, may I raise a matter of which I think you are aware, Mr. Speaker? I submitted a Question to the Lord Privy Seal for Oral answer. I understand that the Table Office recognises that to be the fact. Nevertheless, it appears as Question No. 5 in the Questions for Written Answer. I do not make any charge against the Table Office, but I am asking whether I shall have permission, in these circumstances, to put this Question among the Oral section.

I owe the hon. Member a profound apology. I am very sorry. This is due to a printer's error. In view of the speed with which we have to do these things, I think that on the whole the House does not suffer greatly from these things. In the circumstances, I believe the best remedy I can offer the hon. Member is to call him for a supplementary question on another Question, which will help him out.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Western Germany has yet ratified the Western European Union Armaments Control Agency Convention enabling the Agency to make surprise visits to private armaments factories.

No, Sir. Only the United Kingdom has so far ratified this Convention.

Is not that an appalling admission? Does it not mean that three years after signing, but not ratifying, the Convention the West Germans could be secretly manufacturing atomic and other forbidden arms and that the safeguards of the existing supposed control of German arms production will be worthless?

I do not agree. There are complications, and the fact that none of the other countries involved, apart from this country, has ratified is significant. There are legal complications. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is to see that ratification is completed as soon as possible. We have shown our desire by our own ratification. I hope that not only Western Germany but the other countries concerned will ratify as soon as possible.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that that is not a very convincing explanation of why the Convention has not been ratified? Can he not tell us a little more? If there are legal difficulties, Why were they not anticipated and why did they not obstruct the decision of Her Majesty's Government to ratify?

On the last point, we do not have to have inspections. It is therefore a relatively simple matter for us to ratify. All the countries on the Continent must allow for the legal right of entry, and they have to cover such possible contingencies as damage which might occur in inspection under those circumstances. We understand that all the countries concerned are taking steps to bring in the necessary legislation, but none of it has yet materialised.

Can we be assured that the difficulties are technical and legal and not in any sense political? If so, can the hon. Gentleman say when ratification is likely to take place?

I give the assurance that, as far as we are aware, the difficulties are purely technical. Obviously, I am not in a position to say when ratification will take place, because we have not full control over these matters in any of the countries involved. However, the right hon. Gentleman's points will be borne very fully in mind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what were the results of the conversations that he has had with the Federal Government of Western Germany about the compensation to be paid by Herr Alfried Krupp to the non-Jewish survivors of the forced labour employed by his company during the last war.

No such discussions have been held.

Why not? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 80,000 slave workers were employed by Krupp, that many thousands of them died as the result of the appalling conditions under which they lived, and that last year Krupp agreed to the grant of about £400 a year to the Jewish survivors but has hitherto refused adamantly to give anything to the non-Jewish survivors? As this convicted war criminal has got away for the third year running without his complex organisation being split up, is it not up to the Government now to make representations on the part of the unfortunate people who worked for him so miserably and under such horrible conditions?

There are other Questions on the Order Paper today relating to the hon. Gentleman's last point. On the other points, of course, we would welcome any measures arranged by Herr Krupp to provide for the non-Jewish as well as for the Jewish. But this concerns citizens who are not in any way citizens of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that it is a matter in which we have a direct concern. We have a natural sympathetic interest, but we have no direct concern.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what evidence of efforts made to sell the Krupp holdings in Western Germany was submitted to the Mixed Committee of Experts before a further extension of twelve months was granted.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the conditions governing the retention of Krupp's holdings by Alfried Krupp.

Under the terms of the Bonn Settlement Convention, the Mixed Committee is not required to report to Governments the details of evidence which it has considered. The Settlement Convention lays down, however, that an extension of time may only be granted by the Committee provided that the applicant establishes to its satisfaction that his holdings cannot be disposed of

"… with the exercise of reasonable efforts, on reasonable terms and on a basis which is compatible with the German public interest, and that such disposition will not be possible within the remaining time without a disruptive effect on the German capital market".

From what the hon. Gentleman now says, is it not clear, although his statement is very belated—there is no doubt about that—that it is the German public interest that is the governing factor in the sale of the Krupps holdings? Are we now in the position that Her Majesty's Government are conniving at the delay in disposing of the Krupps holdings? Is it not the fact that this rascal Krupps got away with murder and is now getting away with the swag?

I could not agree that the British Government are conniving at anything. This is an arrangement that is laid down and which we are following with other signatories who are concerned in the matter. The Mixed Committee, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows well, contains only one British representative out of a total of seven, and we have to abide by the decisions they take in regard to this matter. We have received their indication that another 12 months should be given. On the question of the crook getting away with the swag—to use the right hon. Gentleman's felicitous phrase—one must remember that, in fact, the intention never was to deprive Krupp of the proceeds—even had he sold he would still have had the proceeds of sale—so there is no question of getting away or not getting away with the swag.

But is it not the fact that our representative on the Mixed Committee is not pressing the demand which has been made in all quarters of the House during more than eight years that these holdings should be disposed of? Will our representative take urgent measures to ensure that the Krupp holdings are disposed of at the earliest possible date?

The gentleman concerned is not a direct Government representative, although nominated by Britain. We have no control over his actions. He is one member of the Mixed Committee. The Mixed Committee had to be satisfied, under the terms I have read out, before it gave a further twelve months' delay. I think that we must accept its decision in the matter, and in the light of that, I do not think that Her Majesty's Government can be blamed for the position now obtaining.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to provide West Germany, either directly or indirectly through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with nuclear weapons or with weapons with a nuclear capacity and if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to such proposals.

As my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 26th October last, German forces are already equipped with the launching vehicles for certain nuclear weapons under agreed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation plans. There are no proposals for supplying nuclear warheads, which are in United States custody.

Since Generals Heusinger and Speidel now hold two of the three key posts in N.A.T.O., does not the Government's policy as outlined in yesterday's White Paper indirectly and in fact hand over control of certain nuclear weapons to the West German generals? How can the Minister of State be sure that control of the warheads will not land in their hands, since in a time of emergency the warheads must be kept near the weapons?

This arrangement was agreed as long ago as 1958, was announced to the House, and has been debated on many occasions. I do not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, regard the appointment of these particular gentlemen as increasing the risk that the Germans might possess nuclear weapons of their own. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, United States legislation does not allow nuclear warheads to be out of their custody.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the nuclear warheads remain under the custody of American forces or not?

Yes, I believe that is the case.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what report has been received from the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam on the implementation of its decision, recorded in its Tenth Interim Report, that the American Temporary Equipment Recovery Mission should wind up its activities not later than 31st December, 1960.

No such report has yet been received. I understand, however, that the United States Temporary Equipment Recovery Mission has now been wound up.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and ask him to recall that this so-called Temporary Mission has been there for six years and was to have been removed over eighteen months ago? Will he take steps to see that other illegal military activities in South Vietnam are brought to an end, in accordance with the decisions of the Commission?

I am not aware of other illegal military activities. A decision was taken that this body should be wound up by 31st December, 1960, and it has been wound up.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many senior officials in the Foreign Office are engaged full time in the study of disarmament problems.

In the Foreign Office the study of disarmament problems is dealt with by the Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department. the head of which is a senior official.

But that does not quite answer my Question. How many full-time senior officials are engaged on disarmament problems? Is it not a fact that there are very few officials so engaged? Is this not deplorable in view of the increasing prospects of a disarmament agreement and the very complex problems which will be involved in securing such an agreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a number of us feel that the whole question of disarmament should come out of the Foreign Office altogether and be put in charge of a separate senior Minister? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to make representations to the Prime Minister to that effect?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered Questions on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary yesterday. As for operations inside the Foreign Office, it depends on what the hon. Gentleman has in mind when referring to senior officials. There are officials in the Foreign Office whose entire duty to deal with disarmament matters, and there are many officials in Geneva. New York and elsewhere who also have it as their whole-time occupation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, perhaps in the form of a Written Answer, exactly what the status and seniority of the officials concerned are? May there not be quite an advantage in building up inside the Government machine a strong vested interest in the success of disarmament?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a very strong vested interest in all Departments of the Government in disarmament.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) which Governments have responded to the request from the United Nations to ear-mark contingents from their armed forces for use by the United Nations in emergencies; and

No formal arrangements exist for a permanent military planning staff at United Nations Headquarters of the kind envisaged in the Charter. The Secretary-General recognised in his Annual Report for 1959–1960 the need for military expertise in the United Nations Secretariat and referred to the possibility of governments providing stand-by contingents. A copy of the Secretary-General's report is in the Library. We have supported the idea of stand-by contingents. The Secretary-General has not made public the replies received to his inquiry to which my right hon. and learned Friend the then Foreign Secretary referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 18th July last, but it is known that certain important countries are opposed to the idea.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether it is the opinion of the Government that national contingents are ever likely to be able to fulfil the tasks put upon them by the United Nations? Would it not be very much better to have a permanent individually recruited force for the United Nations?

It might or might not be better. We have to deal with what is now practical. In the case of the United Nations Emergency Force, contingents from individual sovereign countries have been successful.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what contributions have been made by the Government to assist Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco since the end of the World Refugee Year; and what plans are being made for giving further aid during the period before the economy of Algeria is sufficiently restored after the end of the fighting, and until the refugees are able to return to their homes.

Her Majesty's Government have made no further contribution to the relief of refugees from Algeria since August, 1960, when they paid their final contribution to World Refugee Year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the World Refugee Year ended some time ago but that the position of these refugees is just as bad as ever? Will he see that we make a reasonable contribution to assist these people in their present distress, and during the period of the negotiations with France and the settlement of their economic position in Algeria?

We are certainly anxious to help these refugees, but a particular organisation has now been established in conjunction with the High Commissioner for Refugees. We keep in very close touch with the High Commissioner, and if he wishes further help he will no doubt apply to us for it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement regarding the exchange of Ambassadors between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Republic.

Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they welcome the exchange of Ambassadors, which will establish a basis upon winch the relations between our two countries can be further improved.

In order to mark this triumphant conclusion to the Government's Suez adventure, would the Government consider the possibility of putting up a statue of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to replace that of the Duke of York?

That supplementary question should not be addressed to this Minister.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, at the moment, there appears to be a real risk of pressure being put on the United Arab Republic to intervene in the Congo? Will he bring to the attention of President Nasser that it would be highly undesirable if, as we are all celebrating the restoration of diplomatic relations, he chose to add fuel to the flames of the Congo?

I think that that supplementary question is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. May I just say briefly to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) that I sometimes feel that hon. Members' harping on this shows, somehow, that their own consciences are unduly disturbed.

Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of our Ambassador the desirability of the relationship between the various members of the United Nations being preserved at a proper standard, and advise him that he should see that one member of the United Nations shall not continually be calling for war against another nation and interfering in a manner quite inconsistent with the United Nations provisions?

I realise that there is a great deal of force in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As we all really want to see the various nations of the United Nations trying to work together, instead of against one another, I have some sympathy with much of what he says.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement regarding the Nuclear Tests Conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the Nuclear Tests Conference.

The Conference went into recess on 5th December. We and the Soviet Government have since accepted the proposal of the United States Government that the Conference should resume on 21st March and not on the previously agreed date of 7th February.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement suggests that the major responsibility for the failure of these negotiations so far rests with the Soviet Government, but that careful study shows that, on the contrary, though the Soviet Government have been obstructive sometimes, the main responsibility rests squarely on the outgoing American Administration? Will he make it quite plain to the new American Government that if this continues it will endanger our whole relationship with them?

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that we have worked very genuinely and very hard to get a treaty but, certainly in recent months, the Soviet Union have given us very little assistance. I only hope that, on this occasion, all concerned will wish to arrive at a treaty in the shortest possible time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he goes back to Geneva that even though it is not possible to work out a completely foolproof system of control and inspection of tests, it may be very worth while for the world itself if a risk were taken and it was decided to agree to a ban subject to working out a future technical system of inspection?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the treaty for which we are now working would ban all tests above ground. As regards underground tests, there would be a ban for all time on tests above a certain magnitude, and below that magnitude there would be a moratorium for a period of years on all such tests, during which time an intensive research programme would go forward to see whether these tests also cannot be made detectable.

If the Minister of State is so certain that the outgoing Eisenhower Administration were not responsible, what are the main points on which the agreement has been held up so far?

If I were to go through all the points on which there is still disagreement it would be seen that they are numerous, but the hold-up mainly relates to the research programme, to how long the moratorium should last, and to the quota of inspections that each side should be allowed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one field of negotiation in which we feel that agreement should not be too difficult? Will he give an assurance that he will urge on the United States Government the necessity for a new initiative in this matter?

I do not know that we just want to urge on the United States Government a new initiative in this matter. I think that we should also urge it on the Soviet Government, who have been extremely obstructive in these negotiations in recent months.

As I understood it, the Minister of State happens to be going to Washington next week, and not to Moscow. In those circumstances, does he not think it desirable to discuss with the United States Government certain new proposals that might be put forward? Is it not the case, in fact, that there is every expectation that they will put forward new proposals? Why not associate ourselves with them?

Of course we will associate ourselves with new proposals that are agreed between the United States and the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman might recognise that the United Kingdom Government have played a particularly constructive part throughout these negotiations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many tins of corned beef intended for starving people in the Congo still remain in this country and are not now required for that purpose; and on what dates his Department contacted the United Nations authorities with a view to this food going to the Congo.

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal told the hon. Gentleman on 8th February, this consignment, 7,662 tins, was part of a supply set aside in response to an appeal from Mr. Hammarskjold to relieve certain food shortages, not famine, in the Leopoldville area last July, After these initial exchanges with the United Nations authorities, we were in touch with them about the remaining tins in December and again last month. As they do not want the beef, we are selling it and shall hand over the proceeds to the United Nations for famine relief.

Since the food was allocated in July, and in October, November and December there was a great famine and many people in this country, including children and elderly people, gave money after seeing harrowing pictures in the newspapers and on television showing the starvation that there was. does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate how they will feel when they know that during all that time nearly 8,000 tins of meat were lying dumped on an airfield which probably would have prevented some people from starving? Why could we not have sent it? Why was it that, according to what the Lord Privy Seal said last week, the aeroplanes were not sufficient to carry the food? Is this country not able to provide transport in an emergency of this sort?

We must put the matter in proportion. The July shortage, which brought the initial offer of the food, was one of great urgency, and immediate action, on a sort of "crash" application, was taken to provide the food and transport which was required. As it happened, this consignment was rather more than the aircraft concerned could take. In fact, it appeared that this particular corned beef, bully-beef, was not food which was particularly useful for the inhabitants of the Congo. What was sent was used by United Nations personnel. It was not a type of food asked for by the United Nations for famine relief, and, in fact, when we offered it again the United Nations authorities told us that it would not be of any use. In spite of the famine, it was not of help to them, and it was for that reason that we decided to sell it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the situation in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has about the latest developments in the Congo, especially with regard to Mr. Lumumbar and what action to deal with this situation is now being proposed or supported in the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House will have been deeply shocked by the news of the murder of Mr. Lumumba and his two companions. It is a disgraceful episode which we utterly deplore and which can only increase the difficulty of bringing peace and order to the Congo.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the obvious abuse of Question Time to make a very long statement, would it be in order at least for the Questions to follow to come after Question Time?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot do that. I suggest that we get on with it now and discuss the virtues or demerits of the practice afterwards.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not rather unfortunate that, on a very important issue like this, hon. Members of the House of Commons should have to go and stand at the Bar in another place to hear a fully responsible statement on it—such as is, I gather, being made there this afternoon?

That is not a point of order. It is merely taking up time.

I was asked for a statement on the situation in the Congo. If I may, I will read the last part of the statement I was making.

In view of the sinister circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr. Lumumba and the various accusations which have been made, particularly against the Secretary-General, is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the setting up of an impartial United Nations inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death?

The Secretary-General has already asked that an inquiry should take place, and we support him in that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this terrible outrage places a still heavier burden of guilt on the Belgian colonialists who, having walked out without having educated the Congolese people—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—,towards self-government, are now crawling back again, arming their murderous puppets, such as Mr. Tshombe, and instigating violence?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will hon. Members be quiet? Will the right hon. Gentleman take—

Order. I cannot hear whether any part of the question is in order if there is such a noise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take very seriously indeed the grave view of these events which is held in such Commonwealth countries as Ghana and India?

We take a very grave view of these events, but some of the hon. Member's accusations against the Belgians are wholly without foundation.

Which accusations?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Question No. 5 among the Questions for Written Answer, which should have appeared among the Questions for Oral Answer? Did the right hon. Gentleman see yesterday in a Conservative newspaper the heading "The corpse on our conscience"? Is it not the case that responsibility for this murder rests not only upon Mr. Tshombe, General Mobutu and Mr. Kasavubu, but also upon the Belgians, who have maintained—[Interruption.]—Mr. in office by their military assistance, and also upon our Government, who—[Interruption.]

On a point of order. It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to hear what my hon. Friend is saying, since the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) thinks that he is answering the question.

My fatigue at trying to hear is slightly increased by the din. Let us get on.

Is it in order for hon. Members to accuse our Government of matters for which they do not have full responsibility?

The Minister can only be asked about matters for which he has Ministerial responsibility. Responsibility is confused in the somewhat composite form of the question.

and also upon our Government and the Eisenhower régime—[Interruption.]

This is out of order.

I cannot distinguish what part of the question is in order unless I can hear it. May I have the assistance of the House in listening to the question?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker—which, by their recognition at the United Nations of Mr. Kasavubu, the head of a party which got only 10 per cent. of the votes, instead of Mr. Lumumba—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—who was the Prime Minister appointed by the Government—[Interruption.]

Order. This is now most irregular. All that part about the Eisenhower Administration onwards is out of order. My impression, however, is that the question was drifting into being a speech.

On a point of order. My Question No. 5 which is by mistake among the Questions for Written Answer—

It has nothing to do with it.

I am not assisted by commentary when hon. Members try to raise a point of order.

I will submit my point of order quietly to you, Mr. Speaker. My Question No. 5, which by mistake is placed among the Questions for Written Answer, refers to a letter which I wrote last Wednesday to the Lord Privy Seal. That letter raised all the questions which I put in my supplementary question. I submit that those matters are in order.

I have difficulty in helping the hon. Member about it. Had he asked what action the Minister took in reply to a request of his, the position would have been different, but I did not heal the hon. Member ask that.

Further to that point of order. Surely, with respect, a resolution of the United Nations to which Her Majesty's Government were a party is within the responsibility of Ministers?

There was nothing about that in the long passage concerning the responsibility of the American Government or the Belgian Government or matters of that kind. I would like to got on, because this is of much interest.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but we must clear this up. It is an important matter. My hon. Friend was referring to the recognition of Mr. Kasavubu by the United Nations. In that matter, Her Majesty's Government share responsibility.

I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice. It is somewhat difficult to hear accurately. I understood the hon. Member's question to be relating, in part at all events, to the responsibility of the Eisenhower Administration for that recognition. That is a quite different point.

Further to that point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I referred to the responsibility of the British Government. It is true that I included the Eisenhower Government, because those two Governments were mainly responsible for the resolution. The point which I am putting is that they recognised as the authority for the Congo a leader who obtained only 10 per cent. of the votes, rather than the appointed—[Interruption.]

What is the guilty conscience about?

rather than the Prime Minister appointed by the elected Government.

Order. The hon. Member is repeating what he said before.

Hon. Members opposite are doing the same.

That is not a regular form of question. Part of the question was capable of answer and was in order. Perhaps we can have it answered now.

In accordance with the procedure of the United Nations, the resolution recognising Mr. Kasavubu's delegates to the United Nations was passed by more than a two-thirds majority of the members of the United Nations. It was in accordance with the procedure of the United Nations that delegates should be appointed by Heads of State. Nobody at the United Nations—neither the Soviet Union nor any other country—ever disputed that Mr. Kasavubu was the Head of State of the Republic of the Congo. That has never been disputed.

rose—

On a point of order. In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, should not these disgraceful allegations now be withdrawn?

No. I want to get on. Mr. Gaitskell.

Is the Minister of State aware that it would have been much better if he had made a statement on this matter after Questions? It would have been fairer to other hon. Members who have put down Questions. Will he take note that in future this should be done? Secondly, may I ask why, when a statement of this degree of importance is being made, it should not be made by the Cabinet Minister responsible for foreign affairs? Why cannot the Lord Privy Seal come and answer the Question himself?

I will certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I regret it if it has been inconvenient for the House that I should have made a long statement during Questions. I had been asked in the Questions for a statement, and I thought it necessary to make rather a full one. As for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, he is at the moment in Geneva attending a conference of E.F.T.A., otherwise I am sure that he would have wished to answer the Questions himself. On the matters raised, I am afraid that before the actual meeting of the Security Council I cannot try to describe to the House the precise lines along which the resolution is to be submitted to the Security Council, but the debate takes place this afternoon and it will be public knowledge later today.

Has my right hon. Friend any information about the circumstances in which Europeans and Africans are living in the Orientale and Kivu Provinces who might possibly be subjected to reprisals for this dastardly murder?

There are very few British subjects now left in Kivu Province, if any. As for the Orientale Province, I understand that there are still nine British subjects in Stanleyville. We have been trying for some time now to see that anybody who wished to leave was brought out, but it has been very difficult to get exit permits from the Gizenga authorities. Also in Orientale Province there are about 40 missionaries in out-of-the-way stations and they have on the whole preferred to remain where they are. Our reports so far from the Congo, both from Leopoldville and Stanleyville, is that all is now quiet.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question about consultations with Mr. Nehru?

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have been in very close consultation with various members of the Commonwealth, including India.

In view of the fluid nature of the situation, could the right hon. Gentleman make another statement tomorrow about what happened in the United Nations?

I would have to see about that.

In view of the very serious repercussions that may well follow from these events in the Congo and the possible failure of the United Nations operation there, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would make it quite clear that the Government will give wholehearted support to the Secretary-General and, in particular, will back him in resisting attacks upon him whether from the Soviet Union or from other sources, such as Mr. Tshombe? Will Her Majesty's Government take some opportunity of welcoming the statesmanlike views expressed recently by representatives of Malaya and Nigeria in support of the United Nations?

I will certainly give the hon. Member an assurance that we will loyally stand by the Secretary-General who, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said, has done everything possible in very difficult circumstances. Quite frankly, if every other country had given him as loyal support as we have the problems of the Congo would not be what they are now.

Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier statement, and while fully agreeing that it would be unreasonable to ask for Mr. Hammarskjold's resignation in a very difficult situation, may I ask whether he would not agree that the British Government ought to request in the United Nations a full inquiry into Mr. Tshombe's responsibility for this murder and demand compensation for the widow and make quite clear what is the view of this country at any rate? May I ask that we should use all our influence in the United Nations to secure that these things are done forthwith?

On the last part of that supplementary question, there is all the difference in the world between individual Belgians being employed by the Katanga Government and the responsibility of the Belgian Government. The Belgian Government have made a recent statement saying that they disagree with the recruitment of further Belgians for operations in the Congo. That is the position of the Belgian Government.

Ballot for Notices of Motions.