asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the action of Her Majesty's Consul-General in Johannesburg in inviting Mrs. Sisulu to the official reception on the Queen's birthday was taken with his authority.

Guest lists for receptions given by Her Majesty's representatives on the occasion of The Queen's Birthday are not normally submitted to my right hon. Friend for approval. The guest list for the reception in question was therefore not submitted to him.

Is the hon. Member aware that we on this side of the House warmly welcome the action taken by the Consul-General? Can he confirm the report that Mr. James Currie is now to leave South Africa, and would he say whether that has any connection with this event? Could he assure the House that the premature transfer of his deputy, Mr. Minford, has no connection with his multi-racial activities in South Africa, or with any protest by the South African Government against those activities?

On the last part of the question, there is no connection whatever between the two. Mr. Minford's posting is in the normal work of the Foreign Office and has absolutely nothing to do with the case to which the hon. Lady referred. I cannot help her about the first part of the question, but if she cares to put down a Question I will attempt to answer it. I should stress here that Mrs. Sisulu was asked in view of her own personal prominent position in the City of Johannesburg, where she is well known for her social and charitable work, and not in respect of her husband at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he omitted from the speech he delivered on 28th April at the Ministerial meeting of the Central Treaty Organisation at Washington a passage in the prepared text calling on members of the United Nations to earmark national units of their armed forces for use in the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the Question by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) on 4th May.

Would the Foreign Secretary inform the House whether his inclusion of this proposal in the prepared text of his speech means that he is in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the policy which he proposes?

I would rather put it that the Leader of the Opposition is in agreement with me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first occasion on which he has done precisely this thing? After a much-heralded announcement that he was about to make a proposal on the lines indicated in the Question at the Disarmament Conference in February, he completely failed to mention it. Is not this carrying even his prevarication a little far?

When I spoke at the Disarmament Conference on 25th February, I made proper reference to this subject, and I shall be referring to it again tomorrow.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Prime Minister is in agreement with his proposal?

Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister and I are always in agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial Council meeting in The Hague.

I attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial spring meeting at The Hague from 12th May to 14th May. The proceedings of the North Atlantic Council are confidential, but I can say that the meeting gave a valuable opportunity to review the state of the Alliance and a number of current problems. I will, with permission, circulate the text of the communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the communiqué did not convey very much information, particularly on the important subject of the mixed-manned force? Could he say whether he informed the Foreign Ministers attending the Council meeting that the United Kingdom could not participate in the mixed-manned force and would object if the United States and Germany went ahead without the agreement of the rest of the Alliance?

The latter proposition was never mentioned at the N.A.T.O. meeting. As for the first part of the question, it has always been made quite clear that Great Britain would take part in the discussions of the multilateral force but had not made a decision as to whether to join that force.

Can the Foreign Secretary say when a decision will be made and that, in the meantime, objections will be made to proposals as outlined in The Times this morning that Germany should be involved in a direct alliance with the United States in the development of this scheme?

When we get a little further with the discussions about the nature of the force we shall also have to take into consideration such developments as that to which the hon. Member referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Government of the United States of America.

I took the opportunity of my visit to Washington for the annual Ministerial meeting of the Central Treaty Organisation to discuss a number of international problems with President Johnson and Mr. Rusk. These conversations were confidential.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of the requests he made to the United States were subject to public discussion and it is, therefore, important that he should comment upon them? What was the result of his request to the United States that American aid to Egypt should be cut off?

This was one of the exaggerations which were made of my conversations with the Secretary of State. No such request was ever put in those terms. What was said was that we should not adopt economic sanctions because we did not think that economic sanctions would be successful. What we did discuss was the need to correlate our policies.

Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with President Johnson the continued spying and the breach of the Geneva Agreement which is taking place in regard to Laos? Did he make any mention of the bombing which has recently taken place there?

No, because nearly all these events have occurred since the occasion of my talk with the President.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which authority the British Consul-General in Taiwan is accredited.

Our senior consular officer in Taiwan holds the rank of Consul. As he does not have diplomatic status, no question of accreditation arises. His relations are only with the local provincial authorities, and he has no contact with the Central Nationalist authorities.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply and correction. Will he make quite clear, not only to the House but also to the Chinese People's Republic and Government in Peking, that this country in no way recognises the Government of Chiang Kai-shek and that our Consul is there purely to promote commercial contacts? If he will do this, will it not assist the establishment of relations between Britain and China on the proper ambassadorial basis that they ought to have?

Yes. I think I have made this position very plain by my original Answer.

Does not my hon. Friend think that, since a tremendous increase in trade is taking place between this country and Taiwan, it would be a very good idea if we could have somebody over here in the equivalent rank, whatever it may be, to our Consul in Taiwan?

As we do not recognise any of the authorities in Taiwan as constituting a Government, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to accept consular officers appointed by those authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has studied the Council of Europe Recommendation No. 389 on East-West relations including suggestions for joint scientific research with the Soviet bloc, particularly meteorological research; and whether he will approach the Russian Government to discover their interest in the joint construction of a freely-floating balloon circulating in the upper atmosphere and radioing information to earth about weather information over all parts of the globe.

I have seen this Recommendation, which is at present under consideration by the Committee of Ministers' Deputies at Strasbourg. On the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I think that, before we decide whether to approach the Soviet Government about this, it would be as well to study the discussions on the general proposal which have been taking place at the World Meteorological Organisation meeting at Geneva with the participation of Soviet delegates.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. When the matter comes back from the World Meteorological Organisation, would my hon. Friend recall that President Kennedy suggested that meteorological research was a fruitful sphere for joint research, that the Soviets have been particularly co-operative over meteorological matters, and that a balloon of this nature would be quite cheap to build and well within the compass of European nations? Would he, therefore, consider it sympathetically?

Yes. I repeat that the Recommendation is still being considered by the Committee of Ministers' Deputies at Strasbourg. I will, however, say that we are wholly in sympathy with the spirit of the Recommendation as reflected in the Preamble.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government to implement Recommendation 325 of the Council of Europe which urged Member Governments to ask the General Assembly of the United Nations to insist on the holding of genuinely free elections in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe and to oppose charges of imperialism and colonialism levelled against them in the General Assembly by initiating debates on the Soviet colonialism practised in those countries.

This Recommendation was brought to Her Majesty's Government's attention in 1962. We consider that the first part is impracticable. As far as the second part is concerned, the colonialism practised in areas which the Soviet Union has incorporated in her territory has been condemned by British spokesmen on many occasions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the other 16 member nations of the Council of Europe ought to support us much more than they do in resisting resolutions criticising affairs in Southern Rhodesia or other parts of the Commonwealth, and will he make representations that they do so when these issues come before the United Nations?

If my hon. Friend is suggesting that we are treating the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe with less respect than other nations do, my Answer is "No, Sir". The Assembly's views are not binding upon member Governments of the Council of Europe but are taken into account when policy is formulated.

In furtherance of the general aims of this Question, will my hon. Friend remind the House of when was the last occasion when members of the Committee of 100 and Labour supporters opposite went in for all-night vigils and protest marches about conditions in Eastern Europe?

That is no part of the Minister's responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made in 1964 to the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration to help the Committee to carry out its programme for the movement of refugees from European countries for resettlement overseas.

Her Majesty's Government have paid their subscription for 1964 to the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration. This amounted to £68,607.

I understand that £68,000 represents 9 per cent. of the administrative budget of the I.C.E.M., but the Committee also has an operational budget to which last year we contributed £20,000 for the movement of refugees. The programme this year is 33,000 to be moved out of Europe, and if we make no contribution this year the work will be gravely imperilled.

We do not normally contribute to the operational budget, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we made a contribution of £20,000 in the exceptional circumstances of 1963. The suggestion he made will certainly be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the discussions with the Libyan Government concerning the future of British military establishments in that country; and if he will make a statement.

The discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Libyan Government about the Anglo-Libyan Treaty were begun on 20th April and resumed on 6th June. The Libyan side was headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the British side by Her Majesty's Ambassador. The talks are continuing, and I am not in a position to make any statement on their substance at this stage.

Is it not the case that our ejection from Libya is imminent? If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many millions of £s have been poured into these bases when such a prospect was highly likely?

No; I would not accept the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman draws. Talks are going forward in a constructive spirit and are likely to take some time. I hope that the fundamental wishes of Her Majesty's Government may be met.

Does the existence of these bases make any cash contribution to the Libyan economy?

There is no doubt—I am sure that the Libyan Government would agree with this—that these bases have been of considerable value to the economy of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply Her Majesty's Government have sent to the request of the Government of the Congo for assistance in the supply of transport for the Congolese National Army.

In response to an appeal made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Congolese Army, General Mobutu, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom, and in support of the Congolese Government, Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide spare parts to enable Congolese Army vehicles of British manufacture to be put back into service, and to supply three or four Landrovers and two or three river launches required in the maintenance of internal security. The estimated cost of this equipment will be about £30,000. Parliament will in due course be asked to vote the necessary amount by means of a Supplementary Estimate. In the meantime, an advance will be obtained from the Civil Contingencies Fund as required.

I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Will he consider that the British Commonwealth has great interests in the maintenance of peace and order in the Congo? Are Her Majesty's Government considering any special measures to help the Government of the Congo to maintain their armed forces in good order after the United Nations forces are withdrawn at the end of the month?

The Congolese Army is assisted by an international training programme. In November, 1963, Her Majesty's Government made available a grant of 2 million dollars as a contribution to international aid to the Congo, and we have also agreed to contribute a further ½ million dollars towards the cost of United Nations civilian operations continuing in the Congo during 1964.

Are the contributions in dollars or £s sterling? Do we have to pay across the exchange?

I cannot say that without notice. I appreciate that one should talk in terms of £s as much as possible, but those were the figures I was given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Council the making of a joint declaration renouncing territorial claims and demands for frontier changes in Central Europe.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the speech of Dr. Seebohm, the Federal Minister of Transport in West Germany, in May, in which he claimed that the Sudetenland is a part of Germany and also asserted that the Munich Agreement was still valid? As Dr. Seebohm still remains a Minister in the Federal Government of West Germany, would it not be wise, if the Western Powers wish to find a basis for negotiations about the future of Central Europe, for them to repudiate this kind of statement and make quite clear that they are not considering territorial claims?

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that, in a speech in New York on 11th June, Chancellor Erhardt repeated that the Federal Government had no territorial claims on Czechoslovakia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain a balance of arms in the Middle East as provided is the Tripartite Declaration of 1951.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work for a balance of arms in the Middle East, in accordance with the Tripartite Declaration of 1951; and what active steps are being taken to promote this policy.

Her Majesty's Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Middle East and to the avoidance of an arms race between the States of the area. We are guided by these objectives in any decisions we take.

Is it not a fact that the Government of Egypt have received large quantities of armaments—warships, submarines, fighter and bomber planes, and tanks—from the Governments of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia? Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated that they are engaged in Egypt on the development and production of rocketry? Are we to understand that the Government of Israel are entitled to come here and obtain adequate arms from this country, or the United States, or is it still the policy of the Government to try to secure agreement with the Soviet Union to stop this supply of arms, and this arms race?

We wish to avoid an arms race. We cannot stop shipments to Egypt, much as we may regret them. As for the question of arms for Israel, we are guided by the objectives that I have stated, namely, that there should not be an arms race in the area.

In view of everything that has happened since 1951, is it not time to seek the co-operation of other countries in obtaining a wider and more up-to-date version of this doctrine of keeping arms out of the Middle East? Ought not this to include discussions on measures to prevent nationals from countries outside the Middle East going there and giving technical advice on the development of rocketry, which, according to the reports, has been done, in that advice has been given to the Egyptians by German scientists?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already indicated in a Reply from this Box that we have no indication that atomic weapons are being accepted or received by Egypt. The Declaration of 1950 still stands. As the late Lord Privy Seal said, it has not been retracted.

To what extent do other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration regard it as in full force and valid? Are we the only ones to do so?

There has not been a great deal of activity under this Declaration, but it remains in force.

As the import of arms into this part of the world is extremely dangerous, are the Government having, or will they have, discussions with the Soviet Union in an attempt to get some kind of agreement about the balance of arms coming into this whole area?

I would not exclude the possibility of talks with the Soviet Union on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the latest proposals received from the Polish Government for a freeze of nuclear weapons in Central Europe.

We examined the proposals very carefully with our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies and we all agreed that they were unacceptable as they stand for a number of reasons. The Polish Government have been informed accordingly.

What are the objections of Her Majesty's Government to these proposals, in view of the fact that Mr. Gomulka has made it quite clear that they postulate adequate and effective verification of any agreement that may be reached?

The objections were on political, military and technical grounds. We have told the Polish Government that we shall carefully examine any further proposals that they may care to make, and have indicated our readi- ness to have frank discussions of the problems involved in measures of this kind.

Rather than reject these proposals, would it not have been wiser to have made some suggestions for adaptations of the scheme, such as the extension of the area proposed in the East and the West, and the application of the scheme to missiles as well as warheads? Is it right that this important matter should be rejected in this rather brusque manner?

We did not reject the proposal. We merely rejected it as it stood, and we gave the reasons for our objections. We said that we were quite happy to carry on discussions on this subject. Extension to a wider area might modify some of the military disadvantages of the plan and some elements of discrimination, and we have indicated that fact to the Polish Government. But if the area were wider we would have the added problem of greater verification, and that would be much more difficult. As for the question of applying the proposals to nuclear delivery vehicles instead of warheads, that is a technical matter. It would be easier to identify nuclear delivery vehicles than to identify warheads, but the inclusion of nuclear delivery vehicles in the Polish proposals would not deal with the military and political objections raised.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that to the extent that the Gomulka proposals are likely to introduce an air of uncertainty into the mid-European situation, it is likely to be more and not less dangerous than it is at the moment?

There are many objections—which we have put in detail to the Polish Government—to these suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Anglo-German relations.

Our relations with the Federal Republic of Germany are excellent. The recent announcement that Her Majesty The Queen intends to pay a State Visit next year has been warmly welcomed in the Federal Republic. A successful "British Week" was held in Düsseldorf at the end of May. An agreement providing for the compensation of British victims of Nazi persecution was signed on 9th June.

The House will welcome the favourable developments to which the hon. Member has referred, but can he say what effect the speech of Herr Seebohm, to which my hon. Friend referred, has had on Anglo-German relations? What was the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to that speech? Was any protest delivered about its objectionable character?

I should require notice of that question.

In such discussions and exchanges on the matter, will Her Majesty's Government suggest to the German Government that any participation in a multilateral nuclear force would be a breach of the spirit and intentions of the Paris Agreement and the Brussels Treaty, and would relieve us of our obligation to protect Germany against armed attack?

No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government's position on the question of a mulilateral nuclear force and the non-dissemination of nuclear power has been made clear on a number of occasions.

Do Her Majesty's Government agree with Chancellor Erhardt in repudiating the views of his Minister of Transport?

This is surely a matter for the German Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish all the documents in the possession of his Department relating to British undertakings to the Arabs during and after the First World War on the subject of the future independence of Arab countries, including the instructions on which Sir Henry McMahon based his letter of 24th October, 1915, to Sherif Husain.

The correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif Husain in 1915–16 has been published in full, together with other relevant material from the period up to 1918. The instructions on which Sir Henry McMahon based his letter of 24th October, 1915, and other relevant documents for the period of the First World War, will become available to the public in the fairly near future in accordance with the Public Records Act, 1958. Meanwhile, it is not proposed to publish further documents for the wartime period. A large number of relevant documents from the period since 1919 have already been published in the series entitled "Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939". Further material will be published in this series in due course.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware, and was it not quite apparent in the recent correspondence in The Times that this is still a matter of acute controversy? Is there any valid reason why we should have to wait the full 50 years before all the facts are made known?

As I say, these documents will be made available for public use in the fairly near future and there seems no sufficient reason to make an exception in this case to the rules stated in the Act.

Will these documents include the promises simultaneously made to the Arabs and to the Jews about the position of the territory of Palestine? Ought we not to know all these pledges in view of the grave situation that has arisen in the Middle East ever since?

The hon. Gentleman really must wait until the full documents are available before he pronounces on the matter. The Times article to which reference has been made mentioned a memorandum which expressed the personal views of its author. As the writer of The Times article himself explained, the department concerned was not a policy-making department in the sense that it was representing Government policy at the time. This was only one of a number of inter-departmental documents that were available at the time.

As I understand the hon. Gentleman, some of the documents will be published, under the 50-year rule, in 1965. Will it not be most misleading and most inconvenient to everyone if all the documents up to 1921 or 1922 are not published together?

I repeat that this document is one of a very large number of documents on the subject which were prepared for internal use and which will become available under the 1958 Act in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the details of President Johnson's proposal at Geneva to freeze strategic nuclear delivery vehicles.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 8th June.

How does the right hon. Gentleman square that Answer, which was favourable to the President's proposal, with the British Government's insistence on going ahead with Polaris? Is it the British Government's position that they want to freeze the start until after the Polaris programme is completed, and is not that an invitation to every other Government to use the same argument and thus make nonsense of the proposal?

I do not think that there is any difficulty at all. The Americans have assured us that their proposals will not in any way interfere with their fulfilment of the Nassau Agreement.

Is not that exactly what I say—that the Minister says that we will postpone the agreement until we have got our oar in first? But is not that an open encouragement to every other Government to do the same, so that there will be no agreement on this proposal?

No, Sir. With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the position. It is very complicated, and I think that he would find it helpful if he read the American representative's speech to the Disarmament Conference, when he expounded what the American proposals are.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of British commitments and interests in South-East Asia, what discussions he had with the Governments of Japan and the Philippines on a settlement of the conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia.

I gave details of my discussions with the Government of Japan in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 11th May. After leaving Tokyo, I had discussions with President Macapagal of the Philippines, who has since made an important contribution to the agreement, announced on 30th May, for a further meeting of representatives of the Malaysian, Indonesian and Philippine Governments. I hope there will be opportunity to take this further in the debate tomorrow.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of how much we welcome the negotiations which have led to the calling of a conference of the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines? And can we have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that, despite all the difficulties, which one recognises are frustrating, in view of the explosive situation throughout South-East Asia, the utmost efforts will be made to secure an agreement between these three countries?

Yes, Sir. As I explained when I was out there, and as I am explaining to the House now, we certainly hope that this conference, not only of the Foreign Ministers but also what is known as the summit, will be successful. We cannot say more today as we do not know what the latest news is. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to find some easement of the situation in South-East Asia, but it must be on the basis of recognising the independence and integrity of Malaysia.

As the British have a great deal of property and interests in Indonesia, may I ask whether, during these discussions, Tunku Abdul Rahman will draw attention to that fact, and to the fact that we are honouring our obligations to him, in order to see whether we cannot get some of those things safeguarded?

I think that Tunku Abdul Rahman is aware of the situation, and I certainly think that my hon. Friend's question will make him more aware of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many treaties involve military obligations to overseas countries; and what are the countries to which such treaties apply.

The United Kingdom is party to a number of multilateral treaties involving military obligations to other members. The principal ones are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Central Treaty Organisation and the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. The United Kingdom also has commitments to other countries under various bilateral treaties. Since the list of treaties and of the countries to which they apply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is unable to furnish me with details of the military obligations undertaken by the United Kingdom the fact that it would take a long time? Can he say whether our military capabilities match up to those obligations? Woud it not be wiser—in future, at any rate—before entering into obligations which involve military action at some stage, to consider whether we are able to fulfil our obligations? May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, and of assuring him that his appointment does not mean that he will have any privileges from this side from anybody?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I certainly accept every word of the last part of his supplementary question. My reason for not giving the full list is that it is long, as he will see when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our military capabilities will match up to our obligations.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, up to date, Britain has fallen down on any of her obligations?

No, Sir. I think that it is right to say that over the last few months we have shown full well that we can match up with our treaty obligations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Tripartite Declaration is one of the treaties that will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

No, Sir. I do not think that it is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many countries have now acceded to or ratified the Genocide Convention of the United Nations.

Of the 43 States which originally signed the Genocide Convention, 38 have since ratified it. There have also been 30 accessions to the Convention.

Can the right hon Gentleman let the House know why, at this stage, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to reconsider their decision not to accede to this Convention? Is he aware that in the Dering case, and in numerous cases taking place in Germany at present, acts of indescribable horror have been shown to have been perpetrated by Nazis? Is he also aware that the Convention itself provides that a person or persons who incite to acts of genocide or who are accessories before the fact, can be charged, but that our present laws make no adequate provision to cope with that situation at all? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it? Will he now accede to the Convention?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we went into this in great detail in an Adjournment debate in which I took part with him on 23rd July last. As I told him then, we accept the spirit of the Convention wholeheartedly and support its objectives. We have considered the matter further since then, and I am afraid that we are still not convinced that we should reconsider our decision not to accede.

Will the right hon Gentleman agree to look at the matter again? Does not he realise that in our own country some people are advocating the commission, either directly or indirectly, of acts of genocide and that the courts themselves apparently cannot deal with the matter? Will he see to it that this Convention is accepted?

I accept the strength of the arguments which the hon. Gentleman has frequently deployed on this, and I certainly accept the strength of his feelings, but, as he knows, the difficulty arises on Article 7 of the Convention. There are real difficulties, as I explained to him in the Adjournment debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whom Her Majesty's Government were represented at the opening of the Aswan dam.

Her Majesty's Ambassador.

Did Her Majesty's Ambassador attend in sackcloth and ashes, and has he sent any official report about the celebrations? Further, is it not quite obvious now that Her Majesty's Government's policy at Suez, far from helping to destroy Communism in that part of the world, led to Mr. Khrushchev opening the Aswan dam?

Her Majesty's Ambassador went there with great interest and he was delighted to accept the invitation, which was sent to him as it was sent to all the other heads of diplomatic missions in Cairo.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has for celebrating the first anniversary of the signing of the nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The best way of celebrating the anniversary of the nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be to sign some further agreement in the field of disarmament, and Her Majesty's Government are working to this end.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that Reply, which I might have written myself, but is he aware that, when the Prime Minister went to Moscow to sign this treaty, he said that his favourite animal was the tortoise? Is the tortoise still at the Foreign Office, or has it been replaced by the snail and the slug so that there has been very little progress?

There has been progress since the signing of the Test Ban Treaty. We are anxious to move ahead as rapidly as possible, but we want at the same time to move ahead as safely as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now accept the right of individual application to, and the compulsory jurisdiction of, the European Court of Human Rights.

No, Sir. I should add that the right of individual petition, for which the European Human Rights Convention makes optional provision, is to the European Commission on Human Rights, not to the Court.

First, as regards the compulsory jurisdiction point, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no objection in principle to our agreeing to submit ourselves to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court, as, indeed, we do in part to the Court at The Hague? Further, is it not correct that what has been holding back Her Majesty's Government until now on this matter has been the fact that we have extended the Convention to about 42 overseas territories with a population of over 97 million, but is it not right that by next October there will be left fewer than 3½ million people in those territories, the rest having attained independence? In view of this, cannot Her Majesty's Government reconsider this question, as our acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction would greatly enhance the authority of the Court?

I agree with the hon and learned Gentleman that there is no objection in principle to our accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. While we do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, we could accept the jurisdiction of the Court in certain ad hoc cases, should we consider them to be suitable. Most of the cases which have come before the Court are, we think, cases which can be dealt with by a body such as is provided for in the Convention, that is, the Committee of Ministers. As to individual petitions to the Commission, we do not accept this, because we feel that it is open to abuse for political purposes.

Will my right hon. Friend take extreme care about any step which might undermine the authority of the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, which is the envy of many countries of the world?

Yes. That is a matter for consideration also.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain four divisions and the Tactical Air Force on the European Continent in accordance with the terms of the Brussels Treaty.

Under the Revised Brussels Treaty, as amended by decisions of the Western European Union Council in March, 1957, and January, 1958, the United Kingdom is committed to maintain on the mainland of Europe ground forces of 55,000 men and the Second Tactical Air Force.

May I take it, then, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of suggesting to our allies in N.A.T.O. or through W.E.U. that there might be a reduction of our commitments in Germany and Europe?

Yes, Sir; that is correct.

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, whatever this commitment may be, it will not be our prime call if we find that we need troops for the Far East and places such as Malaysia?

I have said already that it is our hope to raise our strength to 55,000, but, if there were exceptional circumstances, I am sure that our allies would understand.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this Answer with the one given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in which he said that the present establishment enables us to meet all our commitments? The right hon. Gentleman has just said that we are not, in fact, meeting one of these commitments and we might, in the future, have to reduce even what we have done.

I think it is very laudable, in view of the many world calls upon us, that we are meeting our commitments as we are.

Why do the Government keep up the pretence of having four divisions in Germany, or any hope that we shall ever have four divisions in Germany? Is it not a fact that we have only two divisions there? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in an interview the other day with the French Foreign Minister, he said that the French had two divisions in Germany—whether that be true or not—which was equal to the number we have in Germany?

There is no question of pretence. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the exact number of our troops in Germany, I shall want notice of that question; but my answer prevails, that we hope to reach the total of 55,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Hungarian Government concerning his recent reminder about the settlement of the prewar Hungarian debts; and what further steps he proposes to take concerning this matter.

The Hungarian Government have not yet sent a formal reply to our reminder about pre-war Hungarian bonds. But it is only six weeks since we last spoke to the Hungarians. I think we should give them a little longer.

Are we working in this matter with the Americans? If not, will we consider doing so? I gather that the Rumanians are about to settle and that the Russians are discussing the Baltic bonds. Is it not high time that the Hungarians hurried up?

I have no doubt that the Hungarians are giving serious thought to the matter, and I do not think that there is any reason for us to take further action at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the supply of arms to Spain.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions are imposed in the interests of foreign policy on the sale of arms to Spain; and what recent alteration he has made in these conditions.

Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the supply of arms to Spain is the same as that which we adopt towards other States, namely, that every application is carefully examined in the light of the political, strategic and economic implications of the individual case. We also take into consideration whether such arms are likely to be re-exported or used for aggression against, or the subversion of, other countries.

Can we take it that the Foreign Secretary is not in favour of promoting trade in arms purely for commercial purposes? Does it follow, therefore, that approval to the supply of arms to Spain implies a measure of political consent and support to the régime there? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a measure would be utterly repugnant to the majority of British people?

No firm decision to build ships of British design has so far been communicated to us by the Spanish Government, but the preliminaries have all been gone through. There is no political question in this. What is at stake is that, under supreme competition from other people, we have the chance of fulfilling a very good order, and I very much hope that we would.

Does the Minister's reply mean that he has no objection whatever to selling arms to Fascist countries? Will he recall that he was the Minister before the war who most assiduously told the House of Commons that no Italian or German arms were being sold to Franco Spain? Does not the right hon. Gentleman have some guilt on his conscience, which he ought at least to try to remedy by refusing to agree to this contract?

I have no guilt on my conscience. My previous activities when I was Under-Secretary were concentrated upon keeping us out of the Spanish Civil War, and my present activities are doing my best for my country.

Is it not a welcome consequence of the defeat of the Spanish Armada that the Spanish Government recognise the superiority of design which our warship designers can produce? Is it not, therefore, highly desirable that this design should be allowed to be used by a country with whom Her Majesty's Government have a cultural agreement?

indicated assent.

Was not there a rather premature disclosure of this transaction? Is it true that it was announced in London before it had been announced in Madrid? Indeed, has it yet been announced by Spain? Has any agreement yet been concluded?

I said in my original Answer that no firm decision to build ships of British design has so far been communicated to us by the Spanish authorities. There was a premature disclosure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the continuing threats against Israel being made by Colonel Nasser, what consultations have been held with the United States of America and France, as co-signatories of the Tripartite Pact of 1951, since Her Majesty's Government last endorsed the statement made by the President of the United States on his policy in the event of the violation of frontiers or armistice lines by Israel or any Arab State, about the action to be taken jointly by the three Governments under the terms of that pact and through the United Nations.

We naturally keep in close touch with our allies on all questions affecting the peace and stability of the Middle East.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in the interests of peace in the Middle East if the Egyptian Government knew that an act of aggression against Israel would have more serious repercussions than a resolution before the Security Council, which probably would be vetoed?

I think that the Government of Egypt realise that this would entail serious consequences.

Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that Egypt, which is being rearmed by the Soviet Union, has declared an implacable war against Israel and that the other Arab States, which are being equally strongly armed by this country, have also declared an implacable war against Israel? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that he is contributing anything to the peace of the Middle East by encouraging a competition in arms by both sides, each of which is directed against the same small country in their midst?

No, Sir, we have no desire to encourage a race in armaments. I said in answer to an earlier Question this afternoon that it is our desire to see that peace is kept in the Middle East.

In this field of implacable attacks on various countries, is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever words might be used about Israel, the fact is that Egypt is attacking and invading the Yemen? What action is being taken to implement the United Nations resolution on this matter?

The Yemen raises a wider question than is raised by this Question. I hope that we may discuss it tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many occasions over the past three years British diplomatic representatives in East European countries have been subjected to some form of arrest or detention within the meaning of Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations signed by the representatives of 81 States in 1961.

Our missions in Eastern Europe have reported six occasions during the last three years, of which four have been in the Soviet Union, on which British representatives of diplomatic rank have been subjected to what must be regarded as detention.

Does not this represent six clear cases of a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a widely differing interpretation in various countries of the words "arrest" and "detention"? Does not the fact that we observe these international agreements always react to our disadvantage?

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that there were, in our view, six clear cases of improper detention and in each case we have made appropriate protest. It is important that there should not be these differing interpretations, and we hope that in the future we will interpret the Convention identically.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken regarding the application of Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the recently publicised activities of the British Air Attaché in Moscow.

Article Three of the Vienna Convention states a generally accepted principle, namely, that one of the functions of a diplomatic mission is to ascertain by all lawful means conditions and developments in the country where it is situated. The activities of our Service Attachés in Moscow are strictly in accordance with this principle. Soviet statements that the Air Attaché has behaved improperly are entirely without foundation and the restrictions placed upon his movements are, as we have informed the Soviet authorities, in gross violation of normal diplomatic practice. In addition to a vigorous protest, we felt obliged to impose a corresponding restriction on the movements of the Soviet Air Attaché in London.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this activity of our Air Attaché was in any way unlawful within the terms of Soviet law, as has been quoted widely in the Soviet Press? If not, as appears to be the case from my right hon. Friend's Answer, does it not appear that we are once more suffering from a double standard of interpretation of these words within an international agreement?

The main complaint was that, when he was on a tour with two American colleagues, our Air Attaché entered a prohibited zone of military importance. As far as we can ascertain, this was not in contravention of Soviet law. We do not accept the accusation and I agree with the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements exist for him to be informed of cases where traffic or parking regulations have been broken by drivers of cars with diplomatic immunity so that he can inform the ambassador concerned.

Arrangements have recently been made for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to provide the Foreign Office with regular weekly lists of fixed penalty violations of parking regulations involving persons entitled to diplomatic immunity. These lists are compiled by the Metropolitan Police. More serious traffic offences are individually reported to the Foreign Office by the Home Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great need for these arrangements, because infringements of the parking laws by cars which have diplomatic immunity or which carry a disc are extremely frequent? Is he aware that only this morning, a traffic warden showed me four such cars which were illegally parked in a very short length of street and said that they were there every day, that the occupant of one car stayed to lunch and that there was nothing that the warden could do about it? Is it not absolutely wrong that our motorists should be penalised by these people? If they cannot keep our laws, cannot they be asked to leave the country?

It is for the reasons given by my hon. Friend that new arrangements have recently been instituted to report fixed penalty offences to the ambassadors concerned with a request that the regulations should in future be observed. The more serious offences have always been reported to the ambassadors individually. We must wait and see how the new arrangements work. I may say that the Diplomatic Corps has, in general, shown a considerable willingness to co-operate.

Was the person who killed a cyclist outside the precincts of this House last Monday evening travelling under diplomatic immunity? Is that the reason why nothing has been heard of the accident and so far nothing done in regard to the person who caused the death?

I have no information about that individual case, but if the hon. Member cares to put down a Question I will do my best to answer it.

Questions are already down.