asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the purposes of his Department in transporting four white tents to Italy; and what is the estimated cost of the hire and transportation.

A marquee, buffet tent and two small service tents have been hired and transported to Rome for a reception to be given in the garden of Her Majesty's Legation to the Holy See, on 5th May, on the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen.

The contract cost of hire and transport is £850.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although this sum is relatively small, it has offended many people in the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, it has. Can he tell us what is the difference between using a white tent transported from this country and using a coloured tent made in Italy? When will this kind of extravagant nonsense stop?

I would not accept for a moment that this expenditure has offended people in this country. I believe that if Her Majesty the Queen is willing to undertake these duties, it is our duty to see that she is properly provided for. We endeavoured to acquire a marquee in Rome, but none was available and it was for that reason that this one was sent out.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that this was in fact the cheapest means of providing adequate facilities for this reception?

Yes, I can give that assurance. Inquiries such as we made showed that any alternative which we were able to obtain in Rome would have cost at least £1,200 and might have cost more, so that this was the cheapest form available.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what facilities are provided by his Department for the dissemination in Tunisia of information about Great Britain.

Since the reply is long, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of latent good will towards the United Kingdom in Tunis and that in particular there is a demand for facilities to learn English, and that the local personnel are doing an excellent job representing the British point of view, although with not very adequate facilities? Will my hon. Friend be good enough to consult his right hon. Friend to see whether some improvement can be made in these facilities, which would seem to be very worth while?

I would not dissent from what my hon. Friend has said about the need and the benefit which might result from an extension of our services, but I ask him to study the reply, when he will see that much is already covered. However, we are giving further consideration to what assistance and help we can give in this matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the negotiations for a ban on nuclear explosions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the latest developments in the Geneva nuclear tests talks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Conference on the cessation of nuclar tests.

On 18th April the United States and United Kingdom delegations jointly tabled in the Conference a complete draft treaty which they would be prepared to sign immediately. This text embodied the proposals put forward by the Western delegations on 21st March, as well as treaty language already agreed with the Russians. It was, however, made clear to the Russians that we were prepared to discuss this draft patiently and in detail.

I am sorry to say that we are still waiting for constructive Soviet replies to the proposals we put forward on 21st March.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Opposition welcome the many improvements in the Western proposals which were submitted by the Western delegations and regret the fact that the Soviet Government have so far failed even, I think, to refer to them? Will the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Western delegations have considered Mr. Khrushchev's proposal for introducing a triple veto into all organs of inspection and control? Does he not agree that to introduce a veto into the organs of inspection in that way would be a very retrograde step?

Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Member about that. This proposal for a triumvirate in the administration would be very damaging and we have made it clear to the Russians that we could not possibly accept such a proposal.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper containing the full text of the proposed draft treaty and other relevant information which would enable the public to have a proper appreciation of what is taking place at the Conference?

I should like to think about that and to consult my right hon. Friend. There might be some merit in it, for this is a very complicated and difficult matter for the public to follow.

Could not the British spokesman bridge the alarming gulf between America and Russia by proposing that within the suggested tripartite control commission there should be a two-thirds majority to decide, as that would help to give the neutral bloc great influence?

I do not know that I can follow the hon. Member in that. I would not say that the British in this case could seek to bridge the gap between the Americans and Russians, because we have worked very closely with the Americans and any proposals which have been put forward by us or the Americans have been joint proposals. We are working very closely with the Americans in this sphere.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that anti-nuclear demonstrations, in so far as they are an attempt to misrepresent public opinion here, are likely to hinder rather than help these neogtiations?

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a definite danger that there will be misunderstanding if too much importance is attached to what is a fringe reaction of people in this country and which certainly does not represent the view of the great mass of British people.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there have now been more than 300 meetings of the nuclear test conference, during which time the United Kingdom delegate has done everything to obtain agreement while a final solution has always been thwarted by Russian intransigence?

Yes, there has been a large number of these meetings and we are very disappointed that we have not made more progress, especially in the last few weeks when real efforts have been made by the Western side. We still hope that the Russians will come forward with some positive reactions to these proposals, which have been a genuine attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion, which is wanted by all people in this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) for a two-thirds majority in the control commission? Will he recognise that this is a principle which would be of very useful general application in the whole field of disarmament and that the Russians have agreed to the idea of a two-thirds majority in the control commission for general disarmament, so that this is something which might prove acceptable to them and a way of finding a solution in terms of political realities in the world as it is today?

The question of the constitution of the control commission has been investigated very thoroughly. We have made proposals which we think should lead to a solution and the proposals which we have put forward go quite as far as one could hope to do to meet the Russian point of view.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place in the Councils of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and Central Treaty Organisation on the training and operational use of para-military forces to assist anti-Communist forces operating within the territories covered by these alliances.

The proceedings of the three Councils in all matters are confidential.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that President Kennedy's idea of combating alleged Communism from China to Peru and from Cuba to South Vietnam by paramilitary forces is in conflict with the United Nations Charter and is highly dangerous to world peace? Will he give an undertaking to oppose it with all the means at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government in all these alliances, even to the extent of pointing out that, if the safety of this country is threatened by such proposals, we cannot remain a member of the alliances if they are persisted in?

That misrepresentation of President Kennedy's views has no relevance to this Question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Government regarding British policy in the United Nations in the event of a further invasion of Cuba.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what negotiations have taken place with the United States Government regarding a commitment for joint action on the part of the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the event of war between the United States of America and Cuba.

None, Sir.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that while the American Government have denied giving direct military aid to the abortive invasion, it is now clear that they gave very widespread indirect aid? Has not President Kennedy made clear that this is likely to be repeated, and, just as America restrained us when we attacked Suez—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—would not it be a good thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would not it be useful to peace if we restrained America?

This matter was discussed in the United Nations and a resolution was passed at the United Nations in which we supported the matter being referred to the O.A.S. and that is where the matter should rest.

Will the Minister give a definite assurance that we shall not join in any war which may be caused by American intervention in Cuba?

Our obligations are perfectly cleanly laid down in the treaties which we have with our allies and in the United Nations Charter.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that Castro has said that as a Socialist he will do away with all official opposition?

I also understood that he was to go further and abolish all elections.

I am sure that the Lord Privy Seal would not wish to mislead the House. Is not he aware that the resolution which was passed at the United Nations did not in fact transfer the problem of Cuba to the Organisation of American States, this clause in the Argentine Resolution having failed to receive the requisite majority assent? Would he agree that hostilities in the Western Hemisphere, as in the Eastern Hemisphere, are properly a matter for the United Nations as a whole?

They have indeed been discussed by the United Nations as a whole and dealt with by them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received in the last few days from his representative at the United Nations about events in and around Cuba.

None, Sir.

Are the British Government any better informed on the events in Cuba than was Mr. Dulles? Will the British Government tell America that they are opposed to any repeat performance or any moves by the American Navy either to invade or to blockade Cuba? May we have that assurance?

The Question asked whether we had received any more information from the United Nations. There has been no further debate about it since the resolution was passed, and we have received no information in addition to that.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that in fact the attempt to refer this matter to the Organisation of American States was defeated? Will he, further, give an assurance that we shall not support any attempt to by-pass the United Nations by referring the matter to the Organisation of American States if the State concerned desires it to be heard by the United Nations?

Yes, I accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made about the actual clause and the amendment to the resolution. The position of the regional organisations is clearly laid down in the Charter, in Articles 52, 53, and 54. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the United Nations. If the United Nations likes to refer it to the regional organisations, as it has on occasions done in the past, it is entitled to do so.

The Lord Privy Seal seems to be deliberately confusing counsel on this issue. Will not he confirm, as he was asked to do by my right hon. Friend, that in fact the United Nations Assembly did not pass this to the Organisation of American States, and therefore the latter part of his answer is completely incorrect and unfounded?

I accepted the first part of the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). He asked in the second part for an assurance that we would not refer the matter to the Organisation of American States or any regional organisation if the country concerned did not wish it. I pointed out that the opportunity for the United Nations to do that if they wished by a majority vote is laid down in Articles 52, 53 and 54 of the Charter.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that it was a great disaster when the question of Guatemala was referred to the O.A.S. in 1954, and will he look at what his right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said about that event at the time?

I have read what my right hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion. It has, of course, to a certain extent been misrepresented, and I cannot entirely accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman which were expressed in the first part of his supplementary question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government received an invitation from the Israeli Government to send an official observer to the Eichmann trial; and what reply was sent.

All diplomatic missions in Israel were informed some time ago that they should apply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs if they wished a permanent seat at the trial to be reserved for them. We were later told informally that seats at the trial could be provided for legal observers. We decided on practical grounds, in view of the very full Press coverage which the trial would receive, not to take up either offer.

In view of the overwhelming historical importance of this trial, in view of the contribution which Britain made to the ending of the tragic era that this trial represents, and in view of its importance to Israel and to humanity at large, would not the Minister agree that it would have been more sensible for the British Government to have followed the example of nearly every other Government in the world and accepted this invitation?

No. I do not think that mere attendance at the trial has any implication. Our position in relation to this matter is abundantly clear. I do not think that merely attending the trial would have made any difference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on recent events in the Congo; how many British officers, serving with the United Nations forces, have been killed or injured; how many Britons are or have been serving with the irregular forces in Katanga and elsewhere; what official advice has been given to them; and what information he has on the detention of Mr. Tshombe.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the United Nations in Leopoldville concerning the death of two British officers serving with the Ghanaian contingent with the United Nations forces in the Congo; and what representations have been made to the Congolese authorities in Leopoldville.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what information he has received from the United Nations about the detention in Leopoldville of President Moisé Tshombe of Katanga;

(2) whether, in view of its effect on the security of British territories in Central Africa, he will make a statement about the situation in Katanga.

The most important recent events in the Congo have been the agreement on co-operation concluded in Leopoldville and New York between Mr. Kasavubu and United Nations authorities and the present Conference of Congolese leaders at Coquilhatville. Our information is that Mr. Tshombe is being detained at Coquilhatville by Congolese forces during the Conference. Our representative at the United Nations has been instructed to urge the United Nations authorities to use their good offices to secure Mr. Tshombe's release and return to the conference table. Meanwhile in Elisabethville and South Kasai Province the situation remains calm.

I regret to say that two British officers, Captain T. G. Ralph and Lieutenant A. P. G. Brown, serving with the Ghana contingent in the Kasai Province, are reported missing at Port Francqui. Full information about this incident has been sought from the United Nations authorities. May I add how much we regret the casualties which have occurred at Port Francqui to Ghanaian, and perhaps also Swedish, soldiers.

There were about 40 United Kingdom nationals in the armed forces of the Katanga, of whom 12 were detained by the United Nations at Kabalo and are in the course of being repatriated. As far as I know, no British subjects are serving in a similar capacity in other parts of the Congo. Consular officers in the Congo have been instructed to bring to the attention of those concerned the measures which I announced in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) on 12th April.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that, although our views on the status of Mr. Tshombe may differ, nobody wants him to be subjected to any physical harm as a reprisal for the murder of Mr. Lumumba, but as Mr. Tshombe is, in a sense, what is described in this country as someone whom "the police would like to interview because he may be able to help them with their inquiries", would the right hon. Gentleman seek, if possible, to have him transferred to United Nations custody, so that he may be able to help with the inquiries that are presumably going on, or ought to be going on, into the murder of Mr. Lumumba?

In the United Nations we have supported the motion that there should be an inquiry into the death of Mr. Lumumba, and that is proceeding. We are anxious that Mr. Tshombe should be able to take part in this conference to produce reconciliation between the leaders of the Congo.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports suggesting that the two British officers who were, at least, arrested, may well have been shot while in captivity, and if that subsequently proves to be the case, will Her Majesty's Government make the strongest representations in what appears to be another example of cold-blooded murder?

I have seen those reports, and as we have not had confirmation of them, I have stated it very clearly in my Answer in that way.

In view of what The Times in its first leading article describes as the partisanship of certain U.N. officials, will Her Majesty's Government continue to press for the release of Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Kimba and their return to their own people, and not for their release into the hands of the United Nations as suggested by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)? Further, does not the concentration of U.N. forces on Kamina, in peaceful territory, instead of in North Kasai where there is disorder, constitute a threat to the independence and integrity of Katanga? Will the Government, therefore, cease stopping British subjects from helping the defence of this friendly, African nationalist community?

As to the release of Mr. Tshombe, I have very clearly described in my Answer what the representative of the United Nations is doing. Kamina is a main base suitable for forces, and there is, after all, considerable disturbance in North Katanga owing to tribal warfare, but in any case the disposition of these forces is bound to be a matter for the U.N. commander. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we are carrying out our obligations under the United Nations resolution of 21st February.

Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether any of the 40 British nationals were recruited in this country?

I have no knowledge of that, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the negotiations for a cease-fire in Laos.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what assistance the United Kingdom and Russian Governments have given to the rival forces in Laos to enable them to negotiate a cease-fire.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation in Laos.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received regarding the response to the call for a cease-fire in Laos.

Since I made my last statement, military representatives of the two sides in Laos managed to make contact in no-man's-land in the Vang Vieng sector on 1st May. It was expected in Vientiane today that there would be further meetings which may well have taken place by now but I have no confirmation that this is the case. No details are available but I understand that a de facto cease-fire is now operative on the front north of Vientiane and if the talks go well this should be extended shortly to other fronts. Both the Pathet Lao command and Captain Kong Lae have broadcast over their radios instructions to their forces to cease fire.

Her Majesty's Government have used their diplomatic resources to help to bring about these negotiations.

We have now received the report of the International Control Commission, with which we are entirely in agreement, and Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to discuss with the Soviet Co-Chairman the arrangements for the return of the Commission to Laos.

Has the Lord Privy Seal seen the report in The Times this morning to the effect that, following the arrangement of the cease-fire throughout the whole of Laos, political discussions are to take place between both sides—that is to say, the Government and Pathet Lao? Can we be told whether that is likely to delay the ratification of any cease-fire by the Control Commission?

Not as we understand it, no.

While we must all be thankful that the cease-fire has now been arranged, might not the tension and danger of recent days have been obviated if the United Kingdom Government and Russia had offered their own services to facilitate a meeting, rather than issue an appeal for a cease-fire without making any concrete suggestions?

It was the view of the Soviet co-Chairman that the co-Chairmen should issue the appeal, and the actual arrangements for the cease-fire were bound to be a matter for the forces taking part. Naturally, we offered all our facilities where we could and used what influence we could to bring that about.

From our latest information, and from what the Lord Privy Seal has just said, it is the case, is it not, that Pathet Lao have laid down their arms and accepted the cease-fire? Is that also true of the Royalist forces? At the moment, it would seem not to be so. Did the right hon. Gentleman confute that statement?

What has happened, as we understand from a monitored broadcast, is that Pathet Lao has radioed to its forces, and Kong Lae to some of his, ordering the cease-fire—

Have they accepted it?

That is why I have made this statement in rather careful terms, because we have not had direct information from the area that it has in fact happened yet. But General Phoumi has certainly shown extremely good faith in moving towards this cease-fire, proposing the place, and sending his troops forward under a flag of truce into no-man's-land, and I have no doubt at all that he will carry out the cease-fire.

Surely, such progress, slow as it may be, towards a cease-fire is the strongest argument against hasty unilateral action and intervention on either side in this affair. Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the cease-fire agreement is intended to cover the supply of armaments to either side from foreign countries?

These talks are being carried on by representatives of the opposing forces and we have not yet had any information about the terms on which they have agreed, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the answer to the last part of his supplementary question is.

Surely Her Majesty's Government have reached some understanding with their Soviet co-Chairman as to whether a cease-fire should imply the cessation of external military aid to the two sides that were previously fighting—or is that not the case?

We have always urged that the greatest restraint should be shown in these supplies, and there is a greater possibility of doing that once an actual cease-fire has been secured.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and express the view of Her Majesty's Government that no foreign military aid should be given to either side in Laos following the arrangement for a cease-fire?

I would be very careful in remarking on this, because these are matters to be arranged between those taking part in the cease-fire agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States Government concerning the establishment of the military liaison group at a time when a cease-fire was being called in Laos.

None, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at a time when the most delicate negotiations were proceeding between this country and Russia about the situation in Laos the decision of the United States Government that its advisers in Laos should be put into uniform and re-formed as the United States assistance advisory group to the Royal Laotian Government and permitted to be present with the Government forces in advanced positions was a most unwise one which might have a serious effect on the negotiation of the cease-fire?

It was not a case of the United States sending a military mission to the area. What happened was that the instructors had been with the Royal Laotian Forces for some considerable time as a group of programme evaluation officers, and their description was changed to that of a military advisory aid group so that they might be put into uniform and moved forward with the troops which they were training. The decision to do this was taken before the co-Chairmen issued their request for a cease-fire.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Soviet Government concerning the continued supply of arms to the Pathet Lao.

Since it was first known that the Soviet airlift of arms to the Pathet Lao had begun, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has left the Soviet Government in no doubt as to our views about the danger of it.

We hope that once the cease-fire has been declared, all concerned will show great restraint in this matter. Control of these supplies is one of the matters to be handled at the conference.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Press reports over the week-end which continue to allege that such supplies are still going into Laos? Will he make it quite clear that this House would deplore tendentious reports which were wilfully calculated to sow distrust in an area where agreement would be so valuable? Can he state whether, when he received the assurances from the Soviet Union and when they issued an appeal for a cease-fire, they gave an assurance at the same time that they would stop the supply of arms?

I did not say in my reply that the Soviet Union had given any assurances. I said that we had made plain our view that it would be extremely dangerous if such assistance should be flown in.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he will put before the Geneva Conference to ensure international acceptance of the neutral status of Laos.

The aim of Her Majesty's Government is to establish a neutral, united and independent Laos, but it would be premature to put forward proposals to this end at this stage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now give serious consideration to the proposal I put to him a couple of months ago that Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam should be withdrawn from the designated areas of the Manila Treaty? Does he recognise that the preservation of the right of military intervention by one of the military alliances would be totally incompatible with a neutrality status for Laos?

The means by which a neutral, united, and independent Laos can be achieved and security given to it must be a matter for the conference to settle.

Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the International Commission will be able to control and prevent this supply of arms by either side to either side?

The instructions to the International Control Commission are to supervise and control the cease-fire.

Does that mean the supply of arms to both sides?

We hope that the greatest restraint will be shown in the supply of arms. So far as the first stage is concerned, that is a matter for agreement between the parties now meeting to bring about a cease-fire. So far as the permanent arrangement is concerned, that comes under the terms of reference of the conference which will have to decide how the future status of Laos is to be secured.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an assurance that, in the current discussions on Laos, the Government will oppose any form of military intervention in any circumstances.

No, Sir.

Is not the Minister aware that a policy of military intervention in Laos could very well lead at the best to a Korean war and at the worst to a world war? This situation is now arising in Laos, and unless the Western Powers part company with these doctrines there is no hope whatever of any disarmament agreement or any move towards peace.

Her Majesty's Government have striven very hard in these last few months to bring about a peaceful solution of the conflict in Laos. It now seems that we may be within reach of that. The fact still remains—this is really the answer to the hon. Member's supplementary question—that we have our obligations under the Treaty of Manila, but of course we hope that we can bring about a peaceful settlement and have a conference which will ensure the neutrality, unity and independence of Laos.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the declaration by all 81 Communist and Workers' Parties claiming the right of military intervention in any conflict which they regard as anti-colonial, is the greatest possible threat to peace at the present time?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the total of military and other assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to the sheikdoms in the Middle East, including Bahrain and Muscat and Oman.

The total estimate of economic and military assistance to the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman for 1961 to 1962 is £2,774,325.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is exceedingly foolish in this day and age for so much military assistance to be provided to prop up unpopular, corrupt and feudal regimes? Will he consider increasing the proportion of aid provided for education and social needs and for economic development?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his past experience of the use of extravagent language, would have been rather careful over what he said about those parts of the word. This aid is used so that these countries may be able to defend themselves and to bring themselves to that stage of development which is desirable. With regard to civil aid also, we are only too anxious to help to the maximum extent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is a reasonable credit balance here?

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many British claimants await compensation from the Egyptian Government; how much is due; and when it will be paid.

The United Arab Republic paid to Her Majesty's Government £27½ million as compensation under the Financial Agreement of 28th February, 1959. The Foreign Compensation Commission which administers this Compensation Fund, has received 1,806 applications formulated with details of losses. 953 have been assessed, leaving 853 formulated claims to be determined by the Commission. 2,974 applications have not yet been formulated by the claimants.

As claims are still being received, I cannot say how much will eventually be due in respect of all claims.

Compensation is also due to about 160 British officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government in 1951. Part of this has been paid but the balance still remains to be assessed by the Egyptian Government.

While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for all that information, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the British Government hold about £27½ million, of which less than £7 million has so far been disbursed? Even allowing for the fact that a certain number of claims in respect of sequestration have still to be finalised, could not the Government be a little more generous? Surely the Government would not be taking an undue risk if they released rather more of the £27½ million than they have so far done? With regard to the other problem of the officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government, has not the time come for the British Government to apply much more pressure to get this very deserving class of victims speedily recompensed?

In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, we have repeatedly urged on the Egyptian Government that they should make a final settlement in this respect, and a commission was set up to deal with this. We understand that the commission has virtually completed its work and that the matter is now being put to the Egyptian Ministers for decision. I hope that we may soon forge ahead with a settlement of this matter.

On the general matter, the number of claims which have still to be formulated—to the very large extent which I have mentioned—together with the considerable amount of property which is in process of being desequestrated, makes a firm calculation difficult. In the second Order in Council which we published before Christmas we went as far as we thought we could in making an additional distribution. It was so weighted that the smaller claims have received very much the larger proportion.

The dismissed civil servants are surely in a quite separate category from the others, because they were in contractual relationships with the Egyptian Government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is disheartening and, indeed, exasperating that these answers should be given year after year by the Government, and that the apparent impression of complete impotence on the part of the British Government and the Foreign Office is really tragic when one thinks of the situation of the men concerned, whose numbers are dwindling through the natural course of things?

These are, of course, two separate problems. We have urged with our utmost strength that the question of the officials who were dismissed should be settled. I hope from the information which I have given to the House that it will be possible to do this fairly soon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is being alleged on behalf of the ex-Suez Canal pilots, and maybe others, that the Egyptian authorities are themselves putting a lot of counter-claims in the way of the restitution of the money to the former owners under the sequestration laws? Is our Embassy in Cairo sufficiently well staffed to deal with the situation, and is sufficient pressure being applied by the British Government to find out exactly on what grounds the Egyptian Government are doing this?

I have heard of individual cases of this nature, but I have not heard of it as being a general procedure. The Embassy in Cairo is staffed to deal with this matter, and Sir George Rendel and his assistants in the Foreign Office have just returned from Cairo after spending some five weeks there going through a large number of cases of this kind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether complete agreement on an Antarctic Treaty has now been reached with Argentina and Chile to ensure the peaceful administration of the Antarctic territories, including the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

As the House is aware, the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1st December, 1959, between the Governments of 12 countries including the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile. Article I of this Treaty lays down that Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. Ratification of the Treaty has now been completed by all signatories with the exception of Chile where the Senate has approved it unanimously but where the decision of the Lower House is still awaited. The Treaty will come into force upon the deposit of the instruments of ratification by all the signatory States.

Now that this welcome agreement has been reached on freeezing territorial claims south of latitude 60 in the Antarctic, is there a reasonable hope that Argentina will be rather less tiresome than she has recently been about the status of the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies?

The position of the Falkland Islands, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, is in no way affected by the treaty, but I hope that the stabilising action of getting agreement about the treaty will be of general help in the area.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means in the treaty by "peaceful purposes"? Can he also tell us what value, other than strategic, this area is to us?

What I was referring to was largely scientific purposes. There is a great deal of scientific investigation in which a number of countries are interested going on in the area, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this can be for peaceful purposes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take the opportunity of his visit to Spain at the end of the month to inform General Franco of the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to any proposal that Spain should be admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the situation, expand that brief Answer a little more? Can he assure us that the return of the Foreign Secretary to his former spiritual home has not resulted in any commitment or arrangement which this country might regret and disapprove of if it knew about it? Can he say whether or not the Government are opposed to the entry of Franco into N.A.T.O. so long as his Government continues in its present way of governing the country?

I have several times in the House in recent weeks made plain the position about this matter and that it is not before N.A.T.O. The only assurance that any Government can give is that when a matter is raised it should be considered in the light of the circumstances of the time, and that is the position of the Government. The visit of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is to help to maintain good relations with a friendly Power.

Would the Minister bear in mind, in view of his Answer, that all sane, mature, and unprejudiced minds in the free world would welcome the inclusion of this great and proud nation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the failure of the Spanish Government to prevent the escape of two rebel generals to join the rebellion against France in Algeria recently constitutes yet another argument against accepting Spain into N.A.T.O.?

I really cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks in that context. All sorts of people have difficulty in preventing other people from escaping.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will propose to the Security Council that the International Court of Justice be requested, under Article 96 of the Charter, to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether a Member State has a right to resort to force against another, by supporting counter-revolutionary intervention or otherwise.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Administration has formally claimed the right to resort to force to overthrow the Government of any Latin American State which it regards as Communist? As this claim strikes at the root of the rule of law and might, if acted upon, bring on a world war will he not show publicly, in some way, his concern about, and opposition to, any such doctrine?

I do not think that this is a matter to refer to the International Court.