asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress the Government has made during the last two months towards securing the admission of the People's Republic of China to a seat on the Council of the United Nations Organisation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards the admission of Communist China into the United Nations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now urge in the United Nations that the Chinese People's Republic be given a place in the Organisation in order that a realistic approach can be made towards solving the problems in South-East Asia and the Far East.

As has previously been stated in the House Her Majesty's Government believe that the Chinese People's Republic should be represented in the United Nations, but any decision on the subject will have to be taken by the United Nations as a whole.

Two items dealing with Chinese representation have been inscribed on the agenda for the current session of the General Assembly. Neither has yet been reached.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is impracticable to seek the world peace which we all desire while excluding China, one of the largest and most powerful nations in the world? Will he declare that it is part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to give China the opportunity of joining the counsels of the United Nations?

I have made that plain in my original Answer.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that Her Majesty's Government are a little unrealistic, bearing in mind that it is eleven years since the present Government of China took over and that for the first time in history we have a stable Government in China? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is one thing which we can do to further trade with that country and for the benefit of peace?

The difficulties surrounding this subject are well known to the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in September a spokesman of Her Majesty's Government said in New York that if a Resolution to grant the Government of Peking the Chinese seat on the Council of the United Nations were brought forward we should vote for it? Does that still hold good?

We have not yet seen the form of the Resolution which will emerge in that debate. We must wait until we do.

On the substance, do the Government still stand by the proposition that we should vote for the seating of China.

I have stated the Government's policy in substance in my original Answer.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the danger to health to United Kingdom citizens from fall-out, he will make representations to the Government of the United States of America about their proposals to carry out further nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

No, Sir.

In view of the outcry of indignation expressed by the Government at the time of the Russian tests about the possibility of Russian fall-out, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that any fall-out from American tests would also be likely to pollute the atmosphere and bring the danger of strontium 90 in the bones? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman object to this possibility if it comes from America?

Her Majesty's Government deplore the resumption of tests. As the hon. Member knows, both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister have stated very clearly the circumstances in which they could be resumed.

Is it not a fact that in recent months both the United States and Her Majesty's Government have behaved with a great deal of restraint and forbearance in this matter?

They have so behaved for nearly three years while negotiations have been carried out in Geneva.

In view of the fact that the Soviet Government have repeated the proposal made by the British and American Governments on 3rd September for a ban on tests in the atmosphere, subject only to control by national systems of detection, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept this element in the Soviet Government's proposals, subject to general agreement on other issues?

We are studying the Soviet proposals which were put forward yesterday. I do not think that the House would expect me to comment on them this afternoon.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why he applied to the North Atlantic Council for a certificate of need arising out of military expenditure in Western Germany.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to the House on 25th July on the application which was made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last July for a review of the financial conditions under which our forces are maintained on the continent.

Does this mean that the Government are so poor and our economic situation is so desperate that we had to go to the international national assistance board and plead poverty, saying that we could not incur this extra military expenditure? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this military expenditure is likely to go up or down?

The impact on the balance of payments as a result of keeping our forces under N.A.T.O. in Europe was such that we felt justified in making this application. It was shown to be justified by the investigation made by N.A.T.O.

Is it not humiliating that, after some nine years of this Government, we have to put up our hands and ask for payment to perform only a little more than half of what we undertook by Treaty to do?

This is not a budgetary question of our national finances but an exchange question. It is a very serious problem and we are seeking assistance from a body of which a large number of people are members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government have no responsibility for, or control over, our exchange situation abroad?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether there have been recent changes in the number and length of overseas news broadcasts to Spain.

There have been no recent changes in the number and length of overseas broadcasts in the British Broadcasting Corporation's Spanish service.

I am grateful to hear that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not follow the lead of other Western Governments in cutting down the number of broadcasts to Spain, since it is so important that the people there should have free and uncensored information, particularly when the Communist countries are stepping up the number of their broadcasts?

It is not our present intention to cut down on these broadcasts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in support of a policy of controlled disarmament in an agreed area of central Europe, Her Majesty's Government will make proposals to their allies towards this end.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) on 15th November.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the negotiations on Berlin are more likely to be satisfactory if they form part of a general discussion on controlled disarmament and disengagement in Central Europe?

Answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question?

I must apologise to the House in that I read out the Answer which was really meant for Question No. 8. With permission, I will now answer Question No. 7. That Answer is: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts).

I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) should have an opportunity to ask a corrective supplementary question.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that his answers to Questions of this nature are usually so vague that it does not particularly matter which Question he answers?

Can the right hon. Gentleman at least tell the House whether the Government would support any initiative, taken in negotiation with the Soviet Government on the Berlin question, to discuss also the question of security in Central Europe?

We discussed this matter at some length in the foreign affairs debate a few weeks ago, when I made the position quite clear. There is a later Question on the Order Paper concerning the general question of negotiations on Berlin.

Is it not becoming plainer every day that the great anxiety of the Russians over German rearmament is the central problem of Berlin?

I would not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, but we are dealing with Berlin in later Questions.

Since the debate on foreign affairs, there have been a large number of statements in the American Press saying that there has been an agreement between President Kennedy and Dr. Adenauer that all ideas of a controlled area of disarmament should be abandoned and should not be introduced into any negotiations about Berlin. Have the Government had anything to say to the American Government on that matter?

I cannot comment on the discussions which were carried on between Dr. Adenauer and President Kennedy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Have the Government worked out or made any proposals about a zone of controlled disarmament since the Prime Minister put his name to the plan in the communiqué he issued with Mr. Khrushchev?

During the conference in 1959 in which the peace plan was produced, this matter was an essential part of the plan as a whole. That has always remained the British position.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish the recent correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the situation in South Vietnam.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) on 15th November.

While I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has so promptly complied with the request to answer the Question on the Order Paper, may I ask him if he will direct his future endeavours to two serious dangers? These are, first, the grave and immediate risk of a war like the Korean War breaking out in South Vietnam, and, secondly, the continuous absorption of the free people of South East Asia by Communist forces, which constitutes a threat not only to our friends there but to Commonwealth communications.

I agree about the serious nature of the situation in South Vietnam. I am answering a Question a little later about it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what official approaches have been made to Great Britain by the French Government concerning that Government's proposals for closer political association in Europe.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make representations to the European Economic Community that the current negotiations in the Fouchet Committee on political integration should be suspended pending a decision on Britain's entry.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what official knowledge, in the course of negotiations concerning Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, he has received of the draft proposals presented to the Fouchet Commission concerning political and military co-operation in the frame work of the Common Market.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the course of negotiations regarding the entry into the Common Market, Her Majesty's Government has been kept informed of the proceedings in the Committee of Diplomats of the Member Countries of the European Economic Community, presided over by M. Fouchet in Paris, which is seeking to formulate terms for a political treaty parallel with the Treaty of Rome.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received, in the course of his negotiations with the countries of the European Economic Community, regarding the proposals that the French Government have made to the Fouchet Committee; and, in the light of this information, what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in these negotiations regarding the political integration of Europe.

The work of the Fouchet Commission is distinct from the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community. We have, however, been kept informed of developments by the Governments concerned. We do not intend to ask that their work should be suspended, but we have indicated to these Governments our desire to express our views at an appropriate stage.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman express his views in this House so that the British public may know what his attitude is towards political integration in Europe? Is he aware that we want to get away from the double-talk and to know exactly in which direction we are going?

This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions when we have debated European affairs, and no doubt it will be in the future.

In view of the fact that we have been able to read the right hon. Gentleman's famous speech, we understand quite clearly why the Government wanted to keep it dark. As the right hon. Gentleman stated clearly that we were willing to accept the political consequences of joining the European Economic Community, does not he think that it is most unfair and unjust that this country should be committed in advance to accepting some sort of political layout in Europe in which we have had no say?

We are not committed to accepting matters in which we have no say whatever. What I said in my speech, which was released at the time, was that we shared the objectives of those who had drawn up the Bonn Declaration for greater unity in Europe.

Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman said that we would be prepared to accept any progress which had been made towards that end by the time we entered the Common Market? If that is the case, is it not a gross derogation of the sovereignty of the House of Commons that the Government should be prepared to allow Continental States to make new proposals and, maybe, new agreements on political co-operation, except in association with us? Will he insist that, if there are to be discussions on political co-operation in Europe—agreement on which, according to his statement in Brussels, would be binding once reached—we should be a party to those discussions from the beginning?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the full text of my speech, he will see that it referred to the stage reached when I made my speech in Paris. That is quite clear. When it was summarised and put into the farm in which it was handed to the Press it was naturally changed over to oratio obliqua. That is how the hon. Gentleman read it. If he reads the full text he will see that it is quite clear on this point.

There are various ways in which unity can be discussed. At the moment the Fouchet Committee is in the stage of discussion by officials of various proposals and amendments and so on. It has not reached governmental level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us find the political implications even of the Rome Treaty quite enough to accept? Will he therefore avoid landing us with another ready-made treaty which may be difficult for us to swallow?

Answer.

In view of the ambiguity of the right hon. Gentleman's statement—which may, as he suggests, be due to its reporting in what he called oratio obliqua—would it not be wise for him to tell the House and Europe quite clearly that, at the moment, we do not recognise any obligation to accept agreements on the implementation of the Bonn Declaration to which we ourselves are not a party during the discussions in which they are reached?

I have made our position quite plain. We have indicated to these Governments our desire to express our views, and that is our situation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the negotiations which he is conducting for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, and the steps he is taking to keep Commonwealth countries informed of the progress of the talks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is now the time-table for the negotiations on Her Majesty's Government's application to join the Common Market.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present position with regard to Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made in the discussions with the six members of the Common Market following Britain's application to join.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present stage of the negotiations which he is conducting with the member countries of the European Economic Community following Britain's application to join.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the negotiations for Britain's entry into the Common Market.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in the negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and whether he has been able to obtain safeguards for British agriculture.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the negotiations on Great Britain's entry to the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present stage reached in his discussions on the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now issue a White Paper on the progress so far made in his negotiations on Great Britain's application for membership of the European Economic Community.

Since my statement in the debate on the Address on 2nd November, there has been a further meeting of Ministers in Brussels on 8th and 9th November, at which the members of the European Economic Community and the Commission commented on my statement of 10th October and asked questions based on it. After I had replied to these, the meeting agreed on a programme of work for the immediate future covering the common external tariff and possible solutions to Commonwealth problems. Officials have continued the discussions in preparation for a further Ministerial meeting on 8th and 9th December. We are still only in the preliminary stages and it is too early to forecast when the negotiations will be completed. It would be premature to publish a White Paper reporting progress at this stage, but I hope to make a statement to the House after the Ministerial meeting on 8th December and before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Is the Minister aware that since he started the negotiations the tide of informed opinion in Britain has been flowing against Britain's joining the E.E.C., because our people are now becoming more aware of the consequences, both political and economic, that would follow? What assurances has he already given as to the date on which the tariff reduction already agreed by the Six will be applied in the United Kingdom, and also at what stage he is prepared to accept the rule of the majority vote?

I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member about a change in public opinion in this country, because it does not correspond to the facts. As for his other questions, he will see that they are fully dealt with in my Paris statement of 10th October.

The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to refer to a timetable in his statement, although he said that he would reply to Question No. 17. Is he aware of the reports, emanating from Brussels, which have appeared in some sections of the British Press, to the effect that he has already made a pledge that this Parliament will ratify the Rome Treaty next year and that Britain will join the Common Market on 1st January, 1963? Is he prepared categorically to repudiate this rumour, which has constantly been circulating?

The Minister cannot be asked to confirm or repudiate rumours for which he is not responsible.

On a point of order. The fact that these rumours have appeared in some sections of the British Press is the basis of my Question. I am asking the Minister whether he will repudiate the view which has been expressed in the Press, namely, that this pledge has been given. Surely that is in order.

I understand that these are views expressed in some newspapers or articles. It is out of order to ask a Minister to confirm or deny views so expressed.

I was going to answer the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I said in my substantive Answer that it is too early to forecast when negotiations will be completed. I have had no discussions with the members of the Six about a timetable nor about the conclusion of the negotiations, and I have given no pledge whatever.

In making his further statement on the Common Market, will the Lord Privy Seal pay due regard to the fact that a number of firms have already set up in the area of the European Economic Community, and that other firms are considering moving in in the future? Will he consider the effect of this on the economy of this country, and also take note of the fact that many of these firms could be of great assistance if they went to the North-East of England, or to other areas in Britain where there is under-employment?

In making my further statement I will consider that point, because I am anxious to keep the House as informed as I can.

On the question of political implications, is it not a fact that the Lord Privy Seal has already made it clear, in his statement in Paris on 10th October, that the United Kingdom is now ready fully to subscribe to the aims and objectives of the Rome Treaty, political and otherwise? Surely he is put in a position to explain to the House fully what the political implications will be. Will not he tell us exactly what those implications will be?

The question of the political implications of the Rome Treaty was discussed both by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself in our speeches in the debate in the House at the beginning of August.

Is the Lord Privy Seal going to make it a condition that Commonwealth food and raw materials will continue to enter Britain duty-free? Is he aware that many women will share the view of my wife, who, after watching the apologists for the Common Market on television, said, "If these gentlemen say that it will cost the housewives 2s. a week extra on their food bills you can be sure that it is more likely to be an extra 10s. a week"?

The hon. Member will find that this matter was dealt with in the section of my speech dealing with temperate foodstuffs. I suggest that he might advise his wife that any figures should be treated with a considerable amount of reserve when they are discussed in public.

Arising from Question No. 72, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal during his discussions on Britain's proposed entry to the European Economic Community has accepted in full the implications of the Rome Treaty, and particularly the implications of Article 85, which would completely debar British industrial firms from fixing their own selling and purchase prices on the commodities produced?

The hon. Member must be under some misapprehension about Article 85.

I have it before me.

The hon. Member will see that in my Paris speech I set out our approach to the Treaty as a whole.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that by a Motion of this House on 3rd August last—the Government's own Motion—what he was authorised to do was to initiate negotiations in order to see if satisfactory arrangements could be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.? What he actually said in his speech of 10th October, as we now know, was, "We have made a great decision, which is a turning point in our history." Was not that clearly going far beyond anything that he was authorised by this House to say?

Not in the least. I think that those very words were used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he introduced the debate in which the House gave the Government authority to enter into negotiations.

May we have an assurance that if my right hon. Friend's statement before Christmas is definitive, in the sense that it records a definite further stage in the negotiations and registers the beginnings of an agreement, a statement will be made in such a way that it can be followed by a debate?

The question of a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I will certainly give the House as much information as I can in the statement that I will make before Christmas. But I should not like the House to be under any misapprehension; in negotiations of this kind there is bound to be a limit to the detailed information that one can give at any particular moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he goes far beyond what he was authorised to do by this House he cannot count upon the support of the House in respect of what emerges from his negotiations?

I have not in any way gone beyond the authority given me by the House in August. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely opposed to this policy of negotiation, and I therefore expect him to use every means he can to try to discredit and undermine it—but we have not exceeded our authority in any way.

On a point of order. In his reply the Minister referred to his speech on 10th October. As the official text of this is not to be published until 3.30 p.m., is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring us to it in answers today?

I do not think that there is anything out of order in that. I hope that the hon. Member will find himself fully informed in due course.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent in the negotiations with the European Economic Community it is his policy to obtain permanent safeguards for the Commonwealth; and to what extent he is willing to accept safeguards of a temporary nature.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the course of his recent discussions about the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market, he had consultations with the Foreign Ministers about the production and marketing of milk.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what safeguards he is seeking to obtain for the trade of New Zealand and Australia in temperate zone products, in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what safeguards he is seeking for the free entry of Commonwealth food and raw materials to Britain in the event of Britain joining the Common Market;

(2) what steps he is taking to ensure that in the event of Britain joining the Common Market the ordinance which is being prepared to implement Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome will not be less effective than British legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what safeguards he is seeking for the free entry of Ghanaian and Nigerian exports of raw materials to Great Britain, and for those of other Commonwealth countries in Africa, if Great Britain's entry into the Common Market is negotiated as a result of the talks in which he is now engaged.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent it is his policy to secure safeguards for Commonwealth trade of a permanent nature in his present negotiations with the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations he had, in the course of his negotiations concerning the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market, with the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community concerning quotas for the coal industries involved.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action he is taking during the negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community to secure the continued entry into this country of Commonwealth raw materials and food without tariffs, in view of the importance of tariff-free entry to the United Kingdom economy.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will press for safeguards for United Kingdom domestic economic planning in the current negotiations with the members of the Common Market; and what safeguards he has so far obtained.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what financial estimate he has made of the effect on British industry of the increase in the cost of imports of raw materials, which now enter this country tariff-free, if Britain joins the Common Market, and accepts the common European tariff; and whether he has drawn attention to these economic facts in the negotiations.

The statement which I made on 10th October, and which has been published in the Press and which will be available as a White Paper in the Vote Office at 3.30 p.m., sets out our general approach to the negotiations, outlines our objectives and proposes solutions to our particular problems. I cannot give fuller details of the Government's proposals on specific items nor indicate their effect on particular interests.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of a decline in Commonwealth trade during the period of the negotiations unless Commonwealth Governments are confident that Her Majesty's Government will join the Common Market only on condition that there are permanent safeguards for Commonwealth trade? Will he agree that it will be intolerable for us to have a permanent trading relationship with Europe and a temporary trading relationship with the Commonwealth?

We have given undertakings to the Commonwealth, and the proposals that we put forward to the Community, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, are very fully described in the Paris speech.

With regard to Question No. 26, is my right hon. Friend aware that the arrangements in respect of the production and marketing of milk are likely to be very hard for the agricultural community, and will he give an assurance not to bargain this aspect away in exchange for any other condition which may suit some other of our interests?

I realise the importance of this matter, but the negotiations about the agricultural aspects of the matter will not begin until the New Year.

Will the Lord Privy Seal give the people of this country an undertaking that they will have a General Election on this matter before the Treaty becomes operative?

That is a much wider question.

Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman is negotiating in this matter to lower tariff barriers and not to raise them, and will he, therefore, give an assurance that he will reject any proposals having the effect of raising tariffs on Commonwealth food products coming to this country?

The hon. Gentleman will see that quite early on in my Paris speech I explained that our desire was to see a lowering of tariffs and to make specific proposals to that end.

With regard to Question No. 32, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only Commonwealth interests are involved in this matter, but those of British housewives, whose standards very much depend upon the free entry of food and raw materials from Commonwealth countries?

On Question No. 33, are we to take it that the Government are merely adopting a "wait and see" attitude on this? Are they making any representations about anti-monopoly legislation? Is not our legislation, weak though it is, stronger than that throughout most of the Common Market territories, and ought not we to insist that our anti-monopoly legislation shall not be weakened in any way as a result of these negotiations?

I accept the point made in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but, of course, these matters must be weighed in the national interest as a whole. With regard to restrictive practices, the objectives of the Community and ourselves are the same, but the methods by which we reach them in our legislation are different. We, therefore, proposed in my Paris statement that we should have technical discussions with the Community at a later stage in the negotiations about these matters.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the very life of many of our Commonwealth countries in Africa is dependent on exports of food and raw materials which will be seriously affected by our entry into the Common Market? Will he give an assurance that there will be the fullest discussions with the Governments of those territories before decisions are reached which are prejudicial to the life of their people?

Yes, Sir; I can certainly give that undertaking because I realise the importance of these arrangements. In my Paris speech I said that we should want the territories of the type which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned to have the same opportunities as those which are associated with the Community at present, and that for those who did not want to take advantage of them, there should be other opportunities to make commodity arrangements.

In connection with these permanent safeguards, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the trade arrangements not only with existing Commonwealth countries but with Territories newly reaching independence, where the economy is expanding and where perhaps entirely new safeguards for new commodities might need to be instituted? Further, will he consult with the organised consumers of this country about the way in which these safeguards can protect the housewives, and if the Housewives League becomes resurrected, will he address a meeting of it?

I accept the importance of the hon. Gentlemen's first point—it was a very important one—about the expanding nature of the economies of the countries which are just becoming independent. As to his second point, there are certain difficulties about consulting the consumers as a whole.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reply has been received by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Egypt to the representations he made to the Egyptian Government about the grounds for the further sequestration of British property in Egypt.

We have received an unofficial translation of the decree under which these sequestration measures have been taken. But Her Majesty's Ambassador still awaits clarification by the United Arab Republic Government of several important questions. The British subjects affected are now known to number thirty-seven.

Was not the request for information made more than two weeks ago, and is not the delay in answering a grave discourtesy to this country? Will my hon. Friend consider approaching the Governments of other non-Egyptian nationals affected with a view to joint action, possibly through the United Nations or the International Court?

What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. Our Ambassador in Egypt handed over his aide-memoire more than two weeks ago. I agree that the situation is unsatisfactory. We have every sympathy with the British subjects affected and are urgently pressing for fuller information so that we can decide what steps may be taken to protect their interests.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of increased public concern at the growth in numbers of persons entitled to claim diplomatic privilege, and the increasing extent of the privilege claimed; and if he will take steps to reduce them.

Many new foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic missions have been established in London in recent years. Unilateral or arbitrary limitation of the number of persons accorded privileges would not be practical, but continuous vigilance is exercised to ensure that diplomatic immunities and privileges attach only to persons functionally qualified to enjoy them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are now apparently 6,400 people in London who claim to be entitled to diplomatic privilege, that this privilege has recently been extended even to civil cases so that the persons concerned claim exemption from the liability to insure against motor accidents, that there have been cases where temporary, transient and menial employees of embassies have successfully claimed diplomatic privilege, and does not he agree that the result of the vigilance exercised up to now has been to make the position very much worse and one which is arousing very considerable public concern?

It is inevitable that these numbers should increase as the numbers of diplomatic missions increase. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all these privileges are reciprocal, and so we receive reciprocal immunities and privileges in the countries concerned.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to discuss with other countries means of cutting down this immunity?

At the moment the matter is being considered by various countries in relation to the Vienna Agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how the United Kingdom delegate voted at the General Assembly of the United Nations on resolutions calling for an international convention to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and designating Africa a denuclearised zone; which delegations voted for these resolutions; which voted against: and which abstained.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the United Kingdom delegate in the Political Committee of the United Nations abstained on the motion of 14th November for the denuclearisation of Africa.

The United Kingdom voted against the resolution on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and abstained on the resolution on the denuclearisation of Africa. The information called for in the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is contained in United Nations document A/C1/PV 1194, a copy of which is available in the Library.

Not all the African States themselves voted for the second resolution—that is, that on the denuclearisation of Africa—and we do not believe that geographical contiguity gives Governments the right to impose a given policy on their neighbours, particularly in matters of defence.

Moreover, this resolution called for an uncontrolled moratorium on nuclear tests, a principle to which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 16th November, we are now opposed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very unfortunate image which is given by this country to the world by these votes and abstentions in the General Assembly? On what grounds could a delegate of the United Kingdom abstain from voting on a resolution which called for the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, this disaster which may mean the annihilation of mankind? Does he not wish, in this kind of world, with the danger of nuclear weapons, to neutralise the largest areas that are possible? When this demand comes from the great majority of the people of Africa, should it not be recognised by Her Majesty's Government if they are civilised?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman about the image which is created by these actions. As to the reason why we voted against the resolution on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, in the interests of national security Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to renounce the use of nuclear weapons in advance of a general disarmament treaty providing for effective international control.

Is it not a fact that the resolution on the denuclearisation of Africa merely called on all Powers to refrain from nuclear tests in Africa and also from the establishment of nuclear bases and launching sites in Africa, and invited all States to regard and respect the African continent as a denuclearised, neutral zone? Surely there is in that resolution nothing that ought not to be subscribed to by every Member of this House if we wish to make any progress at all towards general and complete disarmament by establishing as many nuclear-free zones in the world as possible?

The reasons why we abstained were very effectively and adequately given by the British delegate, and a record of them is in the Library of the House.

Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have accepted the aim of trying to stop the spread of atomic weapons? Is it not also true that Her Majesty's Government have been prepared to consider nuclear-free zones for certain other parts of the world? Is it not also the case that in Africa there is no apparent danger whatever of the West being overwhelmed by a majority of Soviet conventional forces? For all these reasons, is not the Government's failure to support the demand for a nuclear-free zone in Africa totally unjustifiable as well as extremely damaging to this country's reputation in that continent?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many independent African States also abstained.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what assistance the Foreign Office gives to foreign diplomats seeking accommodation in London.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 22nd November.

Has not an extra official been appointed in the Foreign Office to go hunting for accommodation, particularly as the diplomatic representatives from the newly independent African countries find it difficult to get accommodation in London?

Yes, Sir. There is a lady member of the Department who is engaged full-time on these matters; but she does not just help over accommodation, she also advises on any personal problem.

In view of the very justified indignation being felt in Nigeria and many other parts of the Commonwealth at the disgusting conduct of certain unnamed British people in daubing the car of the Nigerian representative in this country, cannot he take this opportunity of expressing Her Majesty's Government's view of this incident?

Her Majesty's Government deplore incidents of that sort. We are anxious to assist these people as much as we can, and that is what we are doing.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments on the Berlin problem.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made towards a negotiated settlement of the future status of Berlin; whether Her Majesty's Government has made or will make constructive proposals for such a settlement; and what are Her Majesty's Government's precise objections to the Soviet proposals made more than three years ago.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 14th November. Since then Dr. Adenauer has visited Washington and President de Gaulle has been here. These discussions have been useful and I hope that further progress will be made in the near future, but I cannot give any details before the basis of the Western position has been agreed.

Her Majesty's Government's objections to the Soviet proposals of 1958 are fully dealt with in the account of the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva in 1959 published as Cmnd. 868.

May we be assured that President de Gaulle will not be allowed to veto an East-West conference with a view to securing a peaceful settlement of the Berlin crisis, and that following the Ministers' meeting in Paris in mid-December there will be a conference with the Soviet Union on this crisis?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, Dr. Adenauer is going to meet President de Gaulle on 9th December; this will be followed by the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting, at which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday he hoped it would be possible for the four Foreign Ministers to meet together and discuss the Western position.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? His reply is a complete evasion of the point that I asked. May we be assured that President de Gaulle will not be allowed to veto an East-West conference? Will an East-West conference follow the Ministers' meeting in Paris in December?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has very great experience of these matters in foreign affairs and he will, therefore, not expect me to answer a supplementary question of that kind. He knows that we are searching for a basis on which it would be possible to have fruitful negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what stage in these important matters the House of Commons will be informed of the constructive proposals which Her Majesty's Government would wish to put forward for a solution of the crisis which, they say, threatens the peace of the world in a nuclear age? When the right hon. Gentleman says that the parties are searching for a fruitful basis, does he mean searching with the Soviet Union for a fruitful basis for such discussions, or does he mean that the Western Allies have not yet succeeded in reconciling their differences and at this moment do not know what it is that they want? If they do not know what it is they want, will he tell us so?

Of course, I recognise the difficulties of the House of Commons in a situation of this kind. When negotiations are being considered the House is always confronted with this difficulty and so are the Government, and we are anxious to give the House as much information as we can. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been discussions with Mr. Gromyko, the Russian Foreign Minister, as well as with members of the West, and I suggest to the House that we should be allowed to continue with them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many months it is since the Western Governments began to discuss whether it would be a good thing to meet Mr. Khrushchev to discuss what has been a very dangerous situation in Berlin?

The right hon. Gentleman probably knows the answer. I can also tell him that it is several years since Mr. Khrushchev first created this situation himself.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the talks now taking place in Oslo between the Russian and Norwegian Governments and the further talks between the same two Governments and the Government of Finland arranged to take place in Russia later this year, all of which talks are about territorial fishing limits in which the British fishing industry is vitally interested; and if he will seek to arrange for the British Government to be represented at those talks.

I understand that the Soviet and Norwegian Governments have been discussing a request by the former for fishing rights within Norway's exclusive fishing zone. United Kingdom fishing interests off Norway are protected by Article VI of the Anglo-Norwegian Agreement of 1960.

I am not aware that any talks are to be held on fishery matters between the Soviet and Finnish Governments either bilaterally or with Norwegian participation.

Does the Minister realise that these talks are of very special importance to the British fishing industry and to British consumers in view of the failure of Her Majesty's Government to protect territorial fishing grounds, and does he realise that he has not answered that part of my Question asking whether Britain will be represented at these talks? Will he take steps to see that Her Majesty's Government are represented at these talks and that reports are made to this House of any progress and the results of that progress?

As I have already stated we consider that the United Kingdom fishery interests off Norway are adequately protected by Article VI of the Anglo-Norwegian Agreement of 1960, and we do not think it necessary or appropriate to seek participation in these talks, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are following the matter closely.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present financial situation of the United Nations organisation.

The latest estimates by the Secretariat indicate that at the end of 1961 the organisation will face a total deficit of expenditure over income of about 100 million dollars, of which some 30 million dollars will be an uncovered cash deficit. This may rise to 60 million dollars by the end of the first quarter, and to 90 million dollars by the end of the second quarter of 1962.

Is not this a disastrous position? Does the Lord Privy Seal agree with Mr. Adlai Stevenson that the United Nations is now facing bankruptcy? Can he tell us which countries have failed to pay their contributions and what is likely to be done to remedy this serious financial position?

It is evident from the figures which I have given—which start with a 30 million dollars uncovered cash deficit, mounting to 90 million dollars by the second quarter of 1962—that the financial situation of the United Nations is extremely dangerous. There are eighty-seven countries which are in default of their payments and I will publish that list in the OFFICIAL REPORT if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like it. There have been informal discussions between ourselves and other Powers about this matter, and I understand that it is to come up for discussion in the Assembly shortly.

Would it not save the United Nations' and, what is more important, British taxpayers' money if the expensive and disastrous U.N. adventure and military presence in Katanga, which has undermined peace and order and caused terrible bloodshed, were brought to a speedy conclusion?

My hon. Friend's views about this matter are well known to the House. What is important is that the countries of the United Nations should pay their assessed amounts to its funds. [HON. MEMBERS: "What for?"]

While strongly agreeing with what the Lord Privy Seal has just said about the duty of the members of the United Nations to pay their contributions, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that when the United Nations' finances are in this state the British delegate at the United Nations should have threatened to stop paying our part of the contribution toward the cost of the operation in the Congo if a majority of the Assembly passed a resolution contrary to our wishes?

The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the assessed contribution and the voluntary contribution. Her Majesty's Government have paid a very substantial voluntary contribution as well.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that some of these countries, which are in almost semi-permanent default to the United Nations, were at least disfranchised so that they would be unable to vote at the United Nations?

Under the Charter, that is permissible after a period of two years in default.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what plans he has for expanding the commercial counsellor service in British Embassies in countries to which the United Kingdom is seeking to direct its export drive; and if he will make a statement.

Ways in which the commercial officers of the Foreign Service can contribute to the expansion of British markets overseas are regularly reviewed in consultation both with the Board of Trade and with British industry. Our commercial officers are deployed in the light of these consultations.

In view of the widespread appreciation of this Service and in view of our tremendous need for expanding exports, is there not a case for consider- ing an increase in the extent of this Service?

I am grateful for the tribute which my hon. Friend has paid to the members of this Service, who are doing excellent work, as I have constantly seen when overseas, in helping our exports. We are always considering whether we can improve the Service.

Will my right hon. Friend be careful not to ask these commercial counsellors to do a job which is beyond their powers, remembering that it is not what they can do, but price and quality and delivery which will make the difference to whether we sell abroad? Will he remember that these officers cannot influence these things and will he appeal to British industry to set these things right before he asks—

It is not for this Minister to make appeals to British industry.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made under the 1953 deconcentration plan for the disposal of the coal and steel assets of Alfried Krupp; and whether he will make representations to the West German Government about the enforcement of the plan.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on progress made with the deconcentration of German industry required by Allied High Commission Law No. 27, as announced to the House on 4th March, 1953.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) on 22nd November. The answer to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is "No, Sir."

Has the Lord Privy Seal read Press reports of the deplorable speeches made by Dr. Erhard, among others, at Krupps's 150th anniversary celebrations the other day? Is it not perfectly clear from those speeches that the West German Government does not intend to fulfil its obligations which it took over under the Bonn Convention? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the West German Government and let it know that at least the British Government still take those obligations seriously?

Do they?

Yes, Sir. The obligations remain and so does the machinery for the Committee to examine and report upon it annually.

With regard to the machinery, is it not a fact that the British Government have not yet appointed their member on the Mixed Committee which is due to consider this matter on 31st January? After eight years, is it not the inescapable conclusion either that Ministers have deliberately deceived the House, or that the Germans have been deliberately deceiving the Ministers—or both? That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he now proposes that we should enter the European Economic Community while this convicted war criminal, who employed 12,000 slaves, remains the dominant economic figure in Europe?

The British Government are now in the process of making a fresh appointment to the Mixed Committee because of the unfortunate death of their former representative. The other two questions are completely separate.

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not support any proposal which may be made for dissolving the Mixed Committee, and that if they change their mind on this matter, they will not do so without first informing the House?

That is a matter which affects the other three Powers who are involved in the Mixed Committee, and we should consider this matter in consultation with them. Of course we should expect to keep hon. Members informed of matters of such importance.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present position in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation in the Congo; and what steps are being taken, in consequence of the report of the United Nations Commission which investigated the murder of the Prime Minister of the Congo, to bring to justice those persons, including Belgian mercenaries and Mr. Tshombe, of whose complicity in this murder there is, prima facie, evidence.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and the British delegation, to dissociate the United Kingdom from, and to resist, United Nations resolutions and operations involving further armed intervention in Katanga.

The Central Government have taken over the administration of some towns in North Katanga after the seizure of control by Baluba tribesmen. The United Nations forces took action to restrain some of the troops from Stanleyville who got out of hand.

Reinforcements of United Nations troops have been sent to Kindu in Kivu province, following the massacre of thirteen Italian airmen there, with instructions to bring the murderers to justice. Her Majesty's Government deeply deplore this shocking massacre, which has also been condemned by the Central Government. The Central Government have not yet nominated their representative to the joint Congolese-United Nations Commission to investigate the circumstances of the massacre.

The report of the United Nations Commission which investigated the murder of Mr. Lumumba was published on 11th November. It will no doubt be considered by the General Assembly should this be requested.

The Security Council passed a further resolution on 24th November, the United Kingdom delegate abstaining. The Acting Secretary-General and the Commander of the United Nations forces have both stressed that they regard their task as one to be carried out as far as possible by peaceful means.

Can my right hon. Friend say what is meant by "as far as possible by peaceful means"? Would he not agree that this whole chapter of United Nations interference in the Congo is a sorry comedy—a tragedy—of errors, using the extravagant financial support given by Her Majesty's Government? Is it not now time to bring this financial support to an end as a first step to giving proper, sensible support to a State in Africa which is trying to work for co-operation between European and African?

It is indeed a tragedy that it has not been possible to restore law and order and peace in the Congo as a whole; but Her Majesty's Government are supporting the United Nations' operation to prevent intervention by the great Powers, to provide technical assistance, and to try to encourage conciliation between the secessionist provinces and the Central Government. Those broad issues are worthy of support and that is why Her Majesty's Government have supported the operation.

Is not the U.N. attack on mercenaries in fact an attack on technical assistance? Has not what happened at Albertville established the fact that it is only when local Congolese forces have the expert advice and leadership of European officers that these terrible events and the running amok of troops do not happen?

Her Majesty's Government have supported the removal of mercenaries from the fighting forces, but have never at any time supported the removal of those engaged in technical assistance.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of foreign mercenaries in Katanga are disguised as officials of the public works department? Are not those the people whom the British Government are protecting? Can he also explain why the British Government abstained from voting for a Security Council resolution which would have strengthened the hand of the new Acting Secretary-General in the Congo?

I have no knowledge of the disguise of the mercenaries. Her Majesty's Government abstained from voting for the United Nations resolution for a number of reasons, all of them important. Among them were that the resolution referred only to the secession of Katanga and not to secessionist activities elsewhere in the Congo. Moreover, it said nothing about conciliation. Indeed, an amendment referring to this was withdrawn under threat of the Russian veto. Moreover, it included no reference to the cease-fire arrangements. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government could not support it.

Will my right hon. Friend say why during the discussion of this resolution, Sir Patrick Dean said in New York:

"We are strongly in favour of getting rid of the mercenaries …"?

That includes all the whites and let us face it. Why did he also say, when speaking of the return of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Congo:

"We should have preferred him to return armed in either hand to deal with secession and armed action wherever and whenever they may occur in the Congo"?

Does the phrase "return armed" mean physically armed to deal with the secession of Katanga and with Gizenga's attempt at secession?

No, Sir. It does not mean physically armed. It refers to the matter which I have already mentioned—that we thought that the resolution should have dealt with secessionist activities in any part of the Congo and not only those in Katanga. We have always maintained, and so has the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Sir Roy Welensky, that the Congo should have a unity within its present borders. That was the policy which Sir Patrick Dean was advocating. Her Majesty's Government have never supported the withdrawal of technical assistance and have continuously supported the withdrawal of mercenaries from the fighting forces.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.