asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if in view of the progress made by the French Government in the production of a hydrogen bomb and the preparations for testing it, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Governments of the United States of America and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that France be invited to participate in the negotiations at Geneva for the termination of nuclear tests.

No, Sir. I do not think it practicable to enlarge the composition of this conference.

Is not it rather farcical that whilst America, Russia and Britain are considering the termination of these tests the French Government should be producing this hydrogen bomb and should be planning their first test? Is not there some way in which the Government can bring France into association with these negotiations?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is really addressed to the French Government. In regard to the second part, of course it is our wish that as soon as we have an agreement at Geneva we should persuade as many other countries in the world as we can, including France, to undertake the same obligation.

Is not this proof of the fears of many of us that this weapon would now be developed in more and more countries? Would it not be better, therefore, to open consultations with France to see whether she will agree with us that the production of this weapon should be restricted to America and the Soviet Union?

The best method of proceeding is, I think, to continue our negotiations with America and Russia to get agreement to suspend nuclear-weapon tests and then to persuade other countries in the world to undertake the same obligation.

If the Minister of State does not succeed in getting agreement within measurable time, would not it be wiser to call in more nations, since this is a matter of interest not only to France but to all the nations of the world?

That consideration is certainly to be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the French Government regarding its intention to establish a nuclear weapons testing station at Kerguelen Island, in view of the danger of radioactive fall-out over British Protectorates in South Africa because Kerguelen is in a cyclone belt where winds reach 140 miles an hour.

I understand that a Press report about French plans to test a nuclear device at Kerguelen Island was officially denied in Paris at the time of its publication.

Is not the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that this report has aroused considerable disquiet throughout South Africa and among the populations of our Protectorates? Is he aware that I hope the denial which he has now made will receive wide publicity there, so that that disquiet may be eased?

I quite agree, but I have not made a denial on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I said that the French Government denied it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what exchanges have taken place since the signature of the Austrian Peace Treaty between the signatory Powers and the Austrian Government with particular reference to the maintenance of Austrian neutrality.

In a constitutional law passed by the Austrian Parliament on 26th October, 1955, Austria declared of her own free will her perpetual neutrality. Her Majesty's Government formally recognised this neutrality, as did the other signatories of the Austrian State Treaty. There have been no further exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Austrian Government on this particular matter.

While accepting that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the principle as it has been applied to Austria and honoured by the guaranteeing Powers, even though the circumstances are not parallel, might effectively be applied in the case of Germany, if similar guarantees were given?

For reasons often stated in this House, there is a much greater difference here than the hon. Member has suggested and it is really a quite separate question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement about negotiations with Iceland over the fishing limits and territorial waters.

I regret that I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 26th January to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). The Icelandic Government have unfortunately not yet been prepared to accept any of the proposals which have been made.

Now that it is quite clear Her Majesty's ships can give adequate protection to our trawlers fishing on their lawful occasions and that there can be no real answer to this problem until the Conference on the Law of the Sea is reconvened, is there any chance of getting an agreement with Iceland and a truce until the Conference has reassembled?

My right hon. Friend has made that very proposal, but unfortunately there has been no response from the Icelandic Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on recent diplomatic negotiations concerning the future of Cyprus.

Her Majesty's Government hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly and I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to wait until then.

While we are all profoundly hopeful that a solution will be found on the basis of independence in Cyprus, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that a solution on these lines could have been found four years ago if Her Majesty's Government had not always insisted on maintaining British sovereignty over the whole island?

I do not think that is a true statement of the case. Anyway, I assure the hon. Member that we wish to make a statement as early as possible and I think that if a final statement cannot be made, an interim statement will be made this week on the present state of the negotiations.

Will the Minister of State draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the very important letter in The Times by Sir William Hayter two days ago?

I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary has already read it.

Can my right hon. Friend say anything further at this stage about the bases? Can he bear in mind, for example, that our use of them in the long term might be more securely guaranteed if we were in the position of a freeholder rather than that of a leaseholder?

I have already said that later this week a statement will be made on the present state of the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent in the discharge of its obligations to protect Kuwait, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give assistance to the Ruler of Kuwait against internal subversion.

Her Majesty's Government intend to fulfil their obligations to protect Kuwait. I do not think a useful purpose would be served by trying to define the precise circumstances in which our protection might be required.

While recognising the delicacy of this matter, may I ask if the Minister will agree that, if we are to defend Kuwait from subversion, the internal situation there is of interest to us and as much information as possible should be given to the people about democratic consultation and about economic progress? Secondly, is not it desirable that the people of this country should be much more fully informed about the obligations we have undertaken to these States all up and down the Gulf?

I think this is a request for a rather longer statement about our relations with the sheikhdoms up and down the Gulf. Certainly I think it is a matter about which this House should be informed from time to time.

Is not the use of troops after the trouble has happened a very inefficient way of dealing with this sort of obligation, and is not it time that in these areas where our interest is vitally affected we should take a real interest in the police arrangements because, so far as these are concerned, the sheiks' interests and our own are the same?

I think that there is a great deal in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the achievement of international co-operation on the experimental projection of rockets into outer space.

As my right hon. Friend said on the 11th February, Her Majesty's Government regard international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space, including research of the kind envisaged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a matter of the greatest importance. Their policy is to work for the achievement of such co-operation in every way they can.

Would not it be a useful first step in the direction of international co-operation if the Governments concerned were to agree to register with the United Nations their intention to project satellites and rockets into outer space?

I will certainly bear in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the sale of arms to the former Government of Cuba, he will now review the general principle followed by Government Departments which authorise the supply of arms to Governments with whom Her Majesty's Government is in normal diplomatic relations.

The principles followed by the Government Departments which authorise the supply of arms abroad were explained by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, on 21st January. As a matter of general policy, my right hon. and learned Friend has reviewed them and his conclusion is that they are sound.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government is designed to preserve a balance between our interests in this matter. On the one hand we must guard against British equipment being used to the direct detriment of our security, or to our indirect detriment through the disturbance of international relations and the peace. On the other hand we must look to the export interests of the shipbuilding, engineering and aircraft industries in the United Kingdom; which affect their prosperity and the level of employment.

The House will not, I think, disagree with these principles. As regards their application in particular instances, my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will continue to ensure that the responsible Departments give full weight to the political, strategic and economic factors in each case.

In view of what has happened in Cuba, would not it be a good thing if the Government banned the sale of all arms to any Government the armed forces of which are actually engaged in putting down an insurrectionary movement?

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find himself in conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who wishes to step up our sale of armaments to Indonesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Israel in regard to co-operating with that Government in constructing an oil pipeline from the Gulf of Aqaba large enough to permit the full-scale operation of the oil refinery at Haifa.

None, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend agree that we ought to take every possible step to safeguard our oil supplies in the event of emergency, and would not the construction of such a pipeline not only achieve this but be a great advantage to this country, to Israel and to the whole of Western Europe?

I understand that the Government of Israel are interested in constructing this pipeline. They have not made any approach to us for Governmental help on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the principal decisions, both military and economic, reached by the countries adhering to the Bagdad Pact at their recent conference.

I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 4th February to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who attended the last meeting.

May we take it that economic decisions were arrived at at the Conference, and may I ask whether Iraq was in any way affected, or must we assume that Iraq is now out of it in all except name?

That certainly is the position since 14th July. Iraq is still legally a member of the Pact but has been taking no part in its deliberations. As regards progress on the economic side, I would say that that certainly has been considerable and an offer by Her Majesty's Government to spend £850,000 on economic development in the Pact area was very well received at the Conference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence last week, when asked about the economic results of this Conference, asked the House to await a reply by the Foreign Secretary, and is it really sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say now that he has nothing to add to a reply which asked us to await a reply?

I was not present at the time, but I understand that my right hon. Friend said that a communiqué would be issued which goes into some detail about the economic discussions which took place.

Would it not be useful if the Minister of State could persuade his office to let us have a White Paper with all the decisions taken at the recent Conference, the context of the Minister of Defence's speech and other explanations which would enable us to know what happened?

I will look into that; and I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's request that we should make a detailed report about economic progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress to date in economic co-operation between the member States of the Bagdad Pact.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note—and I think this answers the supplementary question just asked by the right hon. Gentleman—giving some details of the progress of economic cooperation between participating countries of the Pact.

Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the economic work of the Bagdad Pact, and are satisfied with the progress which has been made.

Will not the Minister agree that the purpose of this Pact was to establish friendly and constructive cooperation between countries which had previously been isolated and in some cases hostile; that, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the fullest publicity should be given to every step in the direction of establishing peace and co-operation between these countries, and that that publicity has been sadly lacking in the past?

I do not know whether publicity has been sadly lacking but I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Had we not better contemplate changing the name of this Pact? Was not it originally designed to be a Pact for the Arabs primarily and most of the Arabs were against it, and now it is called the Bagdad Pact and Bagdad is against it?

I think that is a very inaccurate account of the history of this Pact which started off with Iran and Turkey as members of it, and neither of them is an Arab country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated value of the abandoned British claim in respect of the Suez base seized by Egypt; and the amount Egypt claimed for war damage in the Suez campaign.

Until the signature of an agreement with the Government of the United Arab Republic my right hon. and learned Friend has no statement to make on these matters.

What has the right hon. Gentleman to hide? These figures are known to the Foreign Office. Why cannot they be given to the House? Are they something to be covered up and to be ashamed of? Furthermore, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that dispatch after dispatch from Cairo makes clear that until the agreement is signed British industrialists are losing trade to the value of millions of pounds to foreign markets —to the Czechs, Americans and Germans —and will he do something to speed up the signing and so give us a chance in world trade?

It is certainly our desire to see this agreement signed as soon as possible. I do not think that an answer to some of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions would help in getting that speedy signature.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Egyptian Government to his proposal to establish a British Mission in Cairo.

The hon. Member will understand that I cannot inform the House about the provisions of the agreement now being negotiated with Egypt until it has been signed. But there is no difference between the two Governments on the nature of the representation which it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to have in Cairo in order to implement the terms of the agreement and to help and advise British subjects.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is or is not the case that after the agreement was initialled, the British Government sought to impose conditions, and can he say what those conditions were?

No, that is not the case. I appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member in that if one reads newspaper accounts, they are conflicting, and, therefore, cannot all be true. I assure the House that we wish to see this agreement signed as soon as possible, and then full details can be disclosed to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the value of arms supplied to Cuba during 1958; and how much of the said amount is still owing.

In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on 4th February.

With regard to the latter part of the Question, as far as I am aware nothing is owing for arms supplied to the Cuban Government during 1958.

After what has happened, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that we were justified in supplying arms, and does not he think that it is time the Foreign Office became a little more wide awake in finding out what is happening in countries before we make decisions of this kind which redound to our discredit?

That is quite a different question which has been dealt with on a number of occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the continued discrimination against Protestant British subjects in Spain; and if he will make a further protest to the Spanish Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the concern felt amongst Protestants in this country in relation to the continued discrimination exercised against British Protestants in Spain; and what answer he received from the Spanish Government to his previous protest on this matter.

As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 25th June last year, we know of no discrimination against British subjects as such, but if my hon. Friends have any particular cases in mind, I will gladly look into them if they will give me details.

Will the Minister have further inquiries made if I send him a copy of an article which appeared in The Times about ten days ago?

Certainly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the discrimination is against them as Protestants? Is he aware that this is coming very close to a denial of the freedom of worship? Will he remind the authorities concerned that we are living in the twentieth century and not the Middle Ages?

I quite understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but if the Protestants are Spaniards, then Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi. If they are British subjects we can take action.

Does my hon. Friend mean to say that Her Majesty's Government completely disinterest themselves in a condition of religious persecution in a European State with whom we have tolerably friendly relations? Is he aware that this is exceedingly retrograde? Is he aware that in the 1830s George Borrow sold the Bible all over Spain and wrote a book about it? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a very retrograde step? Will he ask Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See to make representations in this matter?

I will draw the last suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.

If the Foreign Secretary does not read The Times, can he at least read Milton's sonnet on the persecution of the Vaudois?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the value of the recent gift of 655 tons of arms made to the Sudan by Her Majesty's Government.

This was the first consignment of a gift, the total value of which is £587,000.

Does the hon. Member think that we are contributing to the peace of the Middle East by continuing to pour in arms? Is not it time that Her Majesty's Government learned the lesson from past events and began to pursue a policy which would bring pacification to the area rather than aggravate the situation?

These countries require arms. I think that it is preferable in the interests of peace that they are supplied from this country rather than others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received from the British Ambassadors in Rome and Vienna on the discussions between the Italian and Austrian Governments concerning the execution of the Paris Agreement relating to autonomy for South Tyrol annexed to the Italian Peace Treaty.

I understand that discussions are going on but I am not in a position to say what progress has been made.

Is the hon. Member aware that those discussions have been going on for more than a year without any result being reached and that the Austrian Chancellor has recently found it necessary to protest publicly against the violations of the Paris Agreement by the Italian Government? Is not it time that the British Government, which was a signatory of the Paris Treaty, took some steps to assist the German-speaking minority in the South Tyrol to achieve their rights?

This is a question for direct negotiation between the two Governments. These negotiations are going on and have been going on for a year. We have not been asked to intervene. We are not a party to the Agreement as such. I therefore think that intervention is not called for.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made at the Geneva Conferences on the discontinuance of nuclear tests and the provision of safeguards against surprise attacks, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the present deadlock in the negotiations in Geneva for the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

As regards the Nuclear Tests Conference, since the reply given by my hon. Friend on 26th January, a further article of a draft treaty has been tabled by the United States Delegation. This deals with detonations for peaceful purposes. The Soviet delegate has submitted a long list of those issues which, in his view, would require unanimous agreement between the original parties to the treaty in order to reach decisions on them in the Control Commission. A technical working group has been studying the staffing of control posts. It would be wrong to describe the negotiations as being deadlocked.

The Conference on Measures against Surprise Attack adjourned on 18th December. The marked difference between the technical approach of the Western experts and the political proposals advanced by the Soviet bloc delegations prevented it from achieving the results which we had hoped for. We trust, however, that if its terms of reference can be clarified in a way acceptable to both sides it will reconvene before long and produce an agreed report.

Could the Minister of State throw a little more light on what has taken place at the Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear tests? Are we to understand that the real objection on the part of the Soviet Government arises from their fear of being outvoted on the Control Commission by the votes of Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government? Could not this be avoided by inviting at least two neutrals to sit on the Control Commission in order to avoid that possibility?

In my original reply I specifically confined myself to information which had been given in communiqués issued by the Conference. I am not at liberty to discuss precise proposals inside the Conference.

We welcome the Minister's statement that the Conference is not in deadlock. Could he clear up the point about the staffing of control posts? Is it a fact, as has been freely reported, that the Soviet Government have agreed to have four to five foreign experts in each control post? If so, should we not do well, as The Times advises, to accept that proposal?

I think perhaps that I can clarify it to this extent. The Soviet proposal does not mean the introduction into the control post of five operating staff. They still wish that all the operating staff in the control post in the Soviet Union should be Soviet nationals. They have now raised the figure of what we would more rightly term, I think, observers to five in that control post. We do not believe that the presence of those five observers, coupled with the complete staffing of the control post by Soviet nationals, would give a sufficient safeguard.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what authority it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government at Geneva that neutral inspectors of nuclear tests should be responsible.

If the hon. Member is referring to nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes, and if it is agreed that such explosions may take place, it will no doubt be agreed also that machinery should be established under the International Control Organ to satisfy all concerned that their purposes are exclusively peaceful.

Is the Minister of State aware that I was not allowing for the possibility of the inspection of so-called peaceful test explosions at all? In addidition, may we take it from that Answer, and the Minister's previous Answer, that it is now the policy of the Western Powers to make provision for further test explosions for so-called peaceful purposes?

If the hon. Gentleman will read his Question again, he will see that it refers to neutral inspectors of nuclear tests. From that, it was not very clear what he was getting at, because the whole object of the agreement is to stop nuclear tests. There would, therefore, not be neutral inspectors of nuclear tests, except of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. In my previous reply I have stated that the United States have put forward a proposal for conducting nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes under certain specified conditions. We have to see whether we can get agreement on that. But I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by Mr. Gromyko about Christmas time, in which he said that he would consider that proposal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties of wording Questions on this subject is that his predecessor told us that he would not answer any more Questions about it? It is, therefore, rather difficult to get precise wording. Will the Minister now answer my supplementary question: is it the policy of the Western Powers now to make provision for the detonation of nuclear devices for so-called peaceful purposes?

Yes, that is the proposal that has been put forward and it would, of course, be accompanied by provisions to ensure that they were only for peaceful purposes, and were conducted under such conditions—that is, underground—that no contamination of the atmosphere could take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the temporary lack of progress at the Geneva Conference on the suspension of nuclear weapon tests, he will now make a statement as to what extent Her Majesty's Government's representatives have put forward proposals for the enforcement of any agreement to suspend tests.

The hon. Member must realise that one cannot enforce a treaty of the kind we hope to negotiate.

In view of the great interest there is in this matter, and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does find it possible to give details when it suits the Foreign Office—as, for example, the statement given to Press correspondents in January—may we ask for a full statement of the present position at Geneva, so that the country can take an intelligent interest in these matters?

I have stated on many occasions that, obviously, the actual negotiations should be confidential, but if, as often happens at this type of conference, various stories leak out—or, sometimes, are deliberately leaked out—it must be within the rights of other delegations to put what they think is a correct explanation before the general public. To go further than that would, I think, be dangerous.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay a White Paper before the House containing the texts of the proposals made by the Governments which are now participating in the negotiations for the discontinuance of nuclear tests.

No, Sir. I fully understand the natural wish to know exactly what is going on at Geneva, but I do not think that a publication such as the right hon. Gentleman envisages would help us to obtain the agreement we all want on stopping nuclear tests under proper international control. The considerations my right hon. and learned Friend put before the House on 4th December were generally accepted at the time, and I think they are still valid.

Has not the Minister himself said this afternoon that there has been a long series of statements and leakages by members of different delegations, some of them highly tendentious? Would it not now be right to follow the precedent set in the middle of 1957 for the proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and to let hon. Members know the texts, so that they can realise the nature of the differences now being discussed?

No, because I am still very optimistic that the differences between us will be overcome. I believe that if we can continue the private negotiations they will be overcome

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have taken place with the Italian Government in respect of future association after 1960 between Italian Somaliland and the present British Colonial Territories; and what representations the Italian Government has made to him in respect of their interests being affected by a possible union of all areas occupied by Somalis.

We have for some time had regular and informal exchanges of view with the Italian Government, as with other Governments with interests in the Horn of Africa, about developments in that area. As part of this continuing exchange, these Governments were told, well in advance, what it was intended to say in the statement about the future of the Somaliland Protectorate made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in Hargeisa on 9th February. Her Majesty's Government took account of comments made by the Italian Government in formulating that statement.

May we take it from that reply that the interests of the indigenous peoples in these areas will be protected, and that that will be the guiding principle and criterion in any future arrangements for bringing these territories together?

I think that that is a wide assumption, with which I would not agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent successful financial outcome to the visit of the President of the Argentine to the United States of America and the growing settlement of conditions in the Argentine; and if, in the light of this, he will now renew his request to the Argentine Government to settle out of court or otherwise compensate the British holders of Anglo-Argentine Tramways debentures and shares.

Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Argentine Government the importance which they attach to an early settlement of the company's case, and will continue to give the company all the assistance that they reasonably can.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the summer holidays are just over in the Argentine and the Law Courts in Buenos Aires have gone back; and, since the Argentine Embassy here informed me over seven months ago that within a few days the results of the case would be declared, is not it now high time that some pressure was brought to bear by our Government for the decision to be announced by the courts—or is it the case that the directors of the company do not wish our Government to intervene at the moment?

As I have said, the issue is before the courts now, and, therefore, there is limited action which Her Majesty's Government could take. They have not been asked to take any further action by the company.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the outcome of the proposal by President Eisenhower for a twelve-Power conference to ensure international co-operation in Antarctica for peaceful purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his reply of the 5th of February, consultations about this proposal are continuing and a working party representing the twelve countries concerned has been meeting in Washington for this purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Special Committee on Antarctic Research, which was set up last year at the end of the International Geophysical Year for international coordination, some functional job in this matter which might help?

I will look into the proposal which my hon. Friend has made.

Would not the most intelligent solution to this problem be to give up sovereignty in Antarctica and to transfer ownership to the United Nations, so that that body could lease out development rights, either to nations or corporations? Have the British Government contemplated this proposition?

That is not precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government. As I think has been stated, the principles on which this working party should proceed are freedom of, and continued co-operation in, scientific research in the Antarctic, and the non-militarisation of the area.