asked the Lord Privy Seal what information has been supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the 15-member Working Group appointed by the United Nations on principles to be applied in determining a special scale of assessments for peace and security, further to the General Assembly's resolution on the question of covering the costs of the United Nations peace-keeping operations.

We have already made clear in the General Assembly our dislike of a special scale of assessment. The United Kingdom is a member of the Working Group and our representative has been instructed to reiterate this view.

is the Minister not aware that the Government were asked to give information on the principles which they wished to see applied by 1st July? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no such information has been provided? In view of the difficulties of running the Congo operation on an ad hoc basis, will the British Government not press, in line with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' disarmament proposals, for the setting up of a permanent United Nations peace force financed on a permanent basis by the members of the United Nations?

That supplementary question goes a little wide of the original Question. As to the first part, the fact that we are members of this group means that our views will be adequately put forward. But I ought to make it plain that we object to a special scale because we believe that the capacity of members to pay is adequately reflected in the regular scale of assessments. If people only paid their regular assessments there would be no difficulty.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is still the Government's policy, as laid down in the 1959 and previous proposals, that a united Germany should be free to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Germany should be reunited on the basis of self-determination and become an independent sovereign state, free to join any defensive security pact or none if it so wished.

On the basis of principle, if Germany is to have full self-determination and sovereignty, does that include the right to provide herself with any arms she wishes, in any quantity? If not, why grant her freedom to join a military alliance, which is another way of preparing for war? On the point of policy, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this condition has imposed an insuperable barrier to any German settlement for years and that, by clinging to the condition, the Government have laid themselves open to the suspicion that they do not really want any German settlement?

No, Sir. The N.A.T.O. alliance, if that is what the hon. Member refers to, is a defensive alliance. The conditions regarding German arms are clearly laid down in the Western European Union Treaty.

Does the reunification of Germany include the return of Silesia?

As has been repeatedly said in the House, the whole question of the exact frontier settlement must depend upon a peace conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make representations to the Portuguese Government in view of the fact that it is not complying with Article 10 of the Anglo-Portuguese Convention of 1891, which guarantees full protection for missionaries in British and Portuguese territories in Africa.

I shall, of course, be ready to consider this if the missionary bodies who are those principally concerned bring forward facts which justify such representations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting to the House that he is in any doubt at all that there is no freedom of religion and religious speech in Angola? After the miserable collaboration of the Tory Party with the Portuguese Government and the I.L.O. in the breaches of those terms in 1930 and after the miserable collaboration of the Tory Government over the United Nations resolution seeking to abolish forced labour in Angola in 1957, is the right hon. Gentleman really now suggesting that the Foreign Office, all of them, several thousands of them, are unaware that missionaries have been murdered in Angola and are unaware that there is no freedom of religious expression? Has the right hon. Gentleman not read the speeches of Dr. Salazar that were made 15 years ago?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have a debate this afternoon on the question of Angola, is not that the moment for the hon. Gentleman to put forward all these points?

The real point about it is that rather too often I have to appeal to hon. Members not to make speeches at Question Time because we do not get through enough Questions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will get near to bringing his question to an end.

I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. One does not often speak on the grave of 50,000 citizens.

If questions were to be increased in length proportionate to their importance and gravity, it would be difficult for me to judge the element of inordinate length.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he does not or did not know?

I understand that in central and South Angola British Baptist missionaries are carrying on their work without difficulty. That is the information that we have. As far as Northern Angola is concerned, where the troubles are at the moment, the Baptist missions have been closed in certain places, in one where the whole Portuguese administration has been withdrawn and is, therefore, unable to protect them, and in another where they have been withdrawn for security reasons. I propose to deal with this matter later on in the debate.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the decision of Her Majesty's Government to send the United Kingdom Consul-General and another official of the Lisbon Embassy on a visit of inquiry to Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reports on the situation in Angola have now been received from the Consul-General in Luanda and another member of Her Majesty's Embassy in Lisbon.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what report he has received from the Consul-General in Luanda, Angola, following his visit to the northern part of that territory; and what changes in the policy of Her Majesty's Government are proposed in the light of that report.

Her Majesty's Consul-General at Luanda will be accompanied on his visit by the Military and Air Attaches to Her Majesty's Embassy at Lisbon, who left for Luanda on 3rd July. It is expected the visit to Northern Angola will begin shortly.

Will the Lord Privy Seal give our representatives instructions that whilst they are in North Angola they will meet the few English missionaries who remain there, and the few African pastors; and will he instruct them to proceed to the Congo to meet the representatives of the 100,000 refugees who are there?

As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, our representatives in the Congo are already able to meet the refugees who are now in that country. I am certain that the Consul-General and the Attaches who are to go to Northern Angola will take every opportunity to meet those on the spot and judge the position for themselves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the important things about a mission of this kind, investigating this kind of allegation, is that it should take place very quickly, because the material evidence tends to vanish? Is he aware that it is now about ten days since his noble Friend made this announcement in the House of Lords? Since he himself told us that the Consul-General was in Luanda all the time, could they not have gone there a bit sooner?

We are anxious that they should go there as soon as possible, but as part of the issue in debate is the military conditions and situation there we thought it advisable that the Consul-General should go accompanied by the Military Attaché. As the Air Attaché has a fluent knowledge of Portuguese, we thought that too would be an asset.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman been aware for some time that there was to be a debate in this House on the Angola situation, and could not he have pressed that the Consul-General should himself, if necessary, have gone to the Northern Territory in order that the right hon. Gentleman might, during the debate later this evening, give the House a report of what was found? Will he give an assurance that when the report comes through he will consider publishing it as a White Paper?

The necessary arrangements have to be made, and they are not entirely in our own hands. As to publishing the report, it is not, of course, the practice to publish diplomatic reports of this kind, but I will certainly give all the information I can to the House at the earliest opportunity after we have received the report.

Did Her Majesty's Government previously ask permission for our Consul-General in Luanda to be allowed to visit the area where fighting was going on in Angola in the middle of March? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has instructed the mission making the visit to inquire whether British arms are being used by the Portuguese Government in their repression of the native population?

We have not previously asked formal permission to go to the Northern Territory. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, our representatives can certainly look into that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has considered the petitions forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 27th June calling for action within the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government in relation to Portuguese punitive measures in Angola and to bring about peace in the area; and what reply he has made.

I have already sent a reply to the hon. Gentleman, which he should by now have received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what occasions and in what form he has conveyed to the Portuguese Government the very strong protests received from citizens in this country, especially from members of the church communities, about the atrocities and outrages in Angola? Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the very strong opposition there is throughout the country to any continued supply of arms to a Government responsible for these outrages?

The Portuguese Government is well aware of the strong feelings we have in this country, and of the petitions presented to individual Members of Parliament—and to this House, as we have seen this afternoon. In addition, my noble Friend had a very full opportunity to discuss this matter with the Portuguese Government during his recent visit to Lisbon.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received regarding the activities of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Inquiry on Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has made to facilitate the work of the United Nations Committee of Inquiry into the situation in Angola following the decisions of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information has been brought to the attention of the United Nations sub-committee on Angola regarding the execution of Africans in the village of Tomboco and other places, and regarding the machine gunning of children from aeroplanes in that country; and what progress has been made by the subcommittee in their study of conditions in Angola.

I understand that the Sub-Committee is meeting at present in New York, and that the Portuguese Government is in touch with Senor Salamanca, who is its Chairman. Its proceeding are confidential, and I am unable to say what information may have been brought to its attention. Its latest progress report is in United Nations Press Release GA/2221, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We hope that the Sub-Committee will report as soon as possible.

Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the Sub-Committee has yet requested permission to enter Angola to pursue inquiries and, if so, what has been the response of the Portuguese Government to this request?

As I have said, the Sub-Committee is in touch with the Portuguese Government, but we do not know what decision has been reached.

In the event of Portugal refusing such permission, will the Lord Privy Seal consider allowing the Sub-Committee entry to Northern Rhodesia in order to pursue its inquiries?

We hope that that eventuality will not arise. We have expressed publicly the hope that the Portuguese Government will co-operate with the Sub-Committee. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, this is not a matter that the Sub-Committee wishes to discuss with individuals. It wishes to go to Angola itself.

Will the right hon. Gentlernan supply to the Sub-Committee the evidence of the British missionaries and British journalists who have been in Angola?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman raised this question last week, and I understand now that the Sub-Committee has been in direct touch with British Baptist missionaries who have come back from Angola about any evidence they can give to it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what contribution has been made or offered to the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government for the relief of refugees from Angola.

None, Sir. The United Nations authorities have not asked for contributions for the relief of refugees from Angola. However, as I told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in reply to a Question on 28th June, the United Nations authorities are using supplies provided by the Congo Famine Relief Fund for relief work amongst Angolan refugees in the Congo. They consider that their present stocks of food are adequate for this purpose.

If the Government will not do something positive about this matter through the United Nations, will not they go a little further on humanitarian grounds alone? Will the Government consider the fact that there are 100,000 Angolan refugees in the Congo now? Would not it be appropriate for the Government to make some contribution to the International Red Cross in order to deal with this human problem?

I have looked into this matter most carefully. The fact remains that the United Nations famine relief organisation is doing an extremely good job. It has adequate supplies. The Red Cross is also very well provided for, and I should like to pay tribute, as I am sure the whole House would, to the remarkable job which it has done with regard to this very large number of refugees. There is no call at present for additional funds. If any came, naturally the Government would consider it sympathetically.

Does not the Minister of State recognise that the greatest contribution which the Government can make to this repression by the Portuguese Government is to make a forthright declaration against the atrocities which are taking place?

I think that that is outside this Question.

It is quite outside the Question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made towards the settlement of claims made by British subjects against the Bulgarian Government through the Foreign Compensation Commission.

One hundred and thirty-eight applications have been received by the Foreign Compensation Commission under the Foreign Compensation (Bulgaria) Order, 1958; the Commission has finally determined ninety-eight of these and expects to have disposed of the remainder by the end of July, with a view to making an interim payment shortly afterwards.

While welcoming that news, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these people have been waiting for over ten years and that one gentleman, about whom I have already written to his Department, was for four years in a Nazi internment camp and is 79 years of age? As his claim has been provisionally accepted by the Foreign Compensation Commission and estimated at being over £12,000, will my right hon. Friend at least make sure that these people are able to get something before they die?

I realise that there has been a delay, but it has been a complicated matter. I am hopeful, as I say, that the Foreign Compensation Commission will be in a position to make some payment shortly, and I hope that that will help my hon. Friend's constituent.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what conditions have been proposed to Her Majesty's Government by the West German Federal Republic, on behalf of the Common Market countries, under which Her Majesty's Government could gain entry into the European Economic Community.

None, Sir.

Why is the Lord Privy Seal so cagey about this? Is it not the fact that the Foreign Minister of the German Federal Republic has made it quite clear in London, on behalf of the Common Market countries, that before Britain would be allowed to negotiate a special settlement she must sign the Rome Treaty, with all its political consequences? Would he not now therefore tell the House the true nature of the special settlement we wish to negotiate, and in what way he would define the political consequences in the event of this country becoming a full member of the European Economic Community?

There was some complaint from hon. Members opposite when I devoted forty minutes of my speech in the recent foreign affairs debate to the situation in relation to the Common Market and the Treaty of Rome, and I do not need to go through that again now. These talks have been carried out between officials and Ministers. They have been bilateral talks, not on behalf either of the European Economic Community or of E.F.T.A. They have been exploratory discussions of a confidential nature, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to divulge what took place in them.

But cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we have not sunk to a condition in which we allow the West German Government to dictate conditions to us?

Nobody is dictating conditions to anybody on either side. If there is to be progress, it must be by negotiation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now accede to the Convention on Genocide in view of the repeated anti-Semitic activities of Nazis and neo-Nazis.

I am not yet in a position to add to what I said in my speech in the House on 5th June.

Does the Minister of State realise that time is extremely important in this matter now? Twelve years have passed since the Convention was accepted, and we have, for our part, made no move at all. Is he aware that, throughout the world, moneys which were extracted from the unhappy victims of Nazism, the 6 million who died, brutally murdered and tortured, are being utilised by Nazis all over the world in order to carry on further anti-Semitic activities? The matter is extremely serious. Will he do something about it?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point of view, as I made plain in our earlier debate, but I do not think that the point he has just raised would be assisted by our adherence to the Convention. I remind him that there are special problems in relation to Article 7 of the Convention and the right of this country to give asylum in certain cases which must be given most careful consideration.

I think that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Although I have raised it before on the Adjournment, I beg to give notice that I must seek an early opportunity of pressing the Minister by raising the matter again on the Adjournment.

The hon. Member may give notice, but, please, no speech.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make it a condition of future grants to the British Council that they should encourage circus and variety performances with a view to arranging exchanges of those performances with countries overseas.

No, Sir. It is Her Majesty's Government's view that per- formances of this nature can best be arranged through normal commercial channels.

Is the Minister aware that circuses and variety acts in this country are not included in cultural recreations and that there is great concern about this among those who are organised in the Variety Artistes' Federation? This is the only country where circus and variety acts may not go abroad in the way that such acts may come to this country. Does not he think that it is time that the whole matter was reconsidered in order to bring circuses and variety acts within terms which will allow them to go outside this country in the way I suggest?

I assure the hon. Lady that there is no invidious distinction here at all. We honestly feel that the most effective way is through the normal commercial channels, which is how these things are usually arranged. I do not think that there is any difficulty arising now, although I should be happy to discuss it with the hon. Lady if she thinks that there is.

May we take it from that reply that Her Majesty's Government is no longer in favour of Summit Conferences?

That is not very clever.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government's representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council of Ministers has informed that body of United Kingdom intentions to reduce British forces in Europe.

No statements on this subject have been made this year by Her Majesty's representative to the North Atlantic Council.

Presumably the Minister is aware of what his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said about this matter and the need for reducing our military forces overseas. If anything is done in Europe, will it be on grounds of economy, or are the troops to be withdrawn to Kuwait?

No, Sir my right hon. and learned Friend made the point that the burden of keeping forces overseas is very great and that some way must be found of dealing with the problem. It may be that in Europe a fairer sharing of the cost could be reached.

Does that mean that troops are likely to be withdrawn from Europe?

No, Sir. No decisions have been taken on this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend was making a very general point.

Do those answers mean that Her Majesty's Government are considering reducing our present commitment in Germany, which is already less than we undertook to keep there? Are we reconsidering the number of troops there?

No, Sir; I did not say that. I said that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement referred to all our forces overseas.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Western peace proposals, tabled at the Foreign Ministers' Conference in May, 1959, are still regarded by Her Majesty's Government as inseparable.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there is any prospect of a peaceful settlement of the German question so long as the Western Powers insist that there can be no consideration, for example, of the Macmillan-Khrushchev proposals for a demilitarised zone in Central Europe until after the creation of an all-German Government with full authority to remain a member of N.A.T.O.?

These proposals were put forward by the West in 1959 as a comprehensive plan with the object of giving safeguards for European security to all the parties concerned. Therefore, they should be considered as a whole.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation on the borders of Iraq and Kuwait.

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

Nothing has occurred to remove our anxiety concerning the Iraqi threat to the independence of Kuwait, and our defensive build-up has proceeded according to plan. The Security Council is today resuming its consideration of the Kuwaiti complaint, and a Kuwaiti delegation is on its way to New York.

Is the Iraq-Kuwait border clearly defined? In any event, would it not be a good thing if the British-Kuwaiti Forces were kept several miles away from the border so as to minimise the risk of border incidents?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that in desert country such as that of the Kuwait-Iraq border it is very difficult to find precisely on the ground where the border is, although it is defined on the map. From that point of view, I agree that there is a great deal in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.

I recognise that Her Majesty's Government had no option but to accede to the Ruler's request for assistance last week, but will he agree that the scale of the operation now being mounted imposes serious military strains upon this country's defensive forces and, if continued indefinitely, will impose serious political and economic dangers on the country as a whole? For that reason, have Her Majesty's Government any plan in mind for trying to transfer their share of the burden for the defence of Kuwait, and, in particular, will they make some proposal that the United Nations should join in this work?

We are anxious that we should have in Kuwait only the forces necessary to be able to meet the threat from Iraq, and we shall have no more forces there than are necessary for that purpose. Until we are satisfied that the threat has disappeared, and the Ruler of Kuwait, as an independent country, is satisfied, we must see that there is effective defence against any attack.

It may be much too early to talk about the establishment of permanent security forces in Kuwait, but will my right hon. Friend take note of the grave danger of allowing what might be called normal United Nations Forces to take up a position there as they are so liable to infiltration by Iraq and other Arab countries? Will he make absolutely certain that, if any foreign force is ultimately established there, the British will have a very important component part to play in it?

That was why, in answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I used the expression that any defence must seem to be effective to both the Ruler of Kuwait and ourselves.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my earlier question? Have Her Majesty's Government any plan in mind for requiring the introduction of some form of United Nations force into Kuwait?

This matter is under consideration at the United Nations and discussions will take place there very shortly. We are, of course, considering what steps we should take there. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that our minds are not closed to it, but the immediate need is to be able to deal with the threat which still remains.

In order to avoid the risk, in the interval before a United Nations force could go there, that British troops might be engaged against the Iraq Army which they have so recently been training, will the Government propose to the United Nations that they should establish a neutralised zone under United Nations observance, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has proposed?

This is another proposition which can be considered, no doubt, in due course. At the moment, the main thing is to be able to deal with the threat which remains.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent consultations there have been with the Ruler of Kuwait concerning the defence of the state of Kuwait in view of the latest developments there.

Her Majesty's Government have been in constant consultation with the Ruler concerning the defence of Kuwait, and have taken the necessary action there.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper on the situation in Kuwait.

I will bear this suggestion in mind.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the sooner he comes to a decision about this the better? If this is a major military operation, could not the people of this country be told what it is all about and the background? Is he aware that this operation looks suspiciously like the old Suez operation which cut off this country's oil supplies? Could he explain why this occurs a week after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that it is necessary to cut overseas military expenditure?

The text of the Exchange of Notes on 19th June, which I announced to the House, has been published as a White Paper and is now available in the Vote Office. The Prime Minister made a very full statement to the House about this on Monday. The purpose of the operation is to meet the request of the Ruler of Kuwait for defence against a threat from Iraq. It is carrying out our obligations under paragraph (d) of the Exchange of Notes.

In making up his mind, will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind the rather extravagant historical justification contained in the speech made by General Kassim when he laid claim to this territory?

I will, indeed. I said we would bear the suggestion in mind in order to choose the right moment when there is sufficient information to publish in the White Paper.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from members of the Arab League following the decision of Her Majesty's Government to land troops in Kuwait.

None, Sir.

Would it not be very helpful in this venture if we could be assured of the good will of the Arab League? Is it not the case that it has met very recently and come to a decision? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he has any inkling of what the attitude of the members of the Arab League, apart from Saudi-Arabia, is in this matter? How does the balance of opinion lie?

I think that all the Arab countries, with the exception of Iraq, sent messages of support and congratulation on the occasion of the Exchange of Notes about the independence of Kuwait. I have no knowledge of the Arab League's having reached a decision in the last few days since the events in Kuwait.

Has the verbal support been manifested in any other way, say by the support of troops?

No, sir, Saudi-Arabia is the only country which has offered the support of troops and has, in fact, sent a token force.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is a very peculiar thing that our soldiers should be shoulder to shoulder with Saudi-Arabian troops in Kuwait although our two Government at the moment have no diplomatic relations? Have the Government any intention—in view of the fact that we may soon be co-belligerents with Saudi-Arabia—of resuming negotiations for the restoration of diplomatic relations?

As it is always said that British troops are the best ambassadors in the world, it may be that this will lead to a better relationship.

Could the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that 40 per cent. of the oil on which this country's industry depends comes from Kuwait and that our troops are there in order to defend it because the Government think they cannot defend it in any other way? If those facts are made clear, does he not think that our reputation in the world would be just a trifle higher than by this constant humbug and pretence about the protection of the Ruler of Kuwait? If we are there for protection of our own interests, why not say so frankly?

The whole world knows that we have very great interests—

Why bother about the Ruler?

—as indeed have other countries and nationals, in the oil which is either in Kuwait or adjacent to Kuwait. Kuwait achieved independence. Only a fortnight ago we offered protection for Kuwait's independence. I notice that the hon. Member is very careful in his choice of countries which ought to have their independence protected for them. This is a case where we undertook obligations and we are carrying them out.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what quantities and types of British arms have been supplied to Portugal in each of the last 12Months; what conditions have been attached in each case; and on what date Her Majesty's Government not to employ these arms in overseas territories.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the amount and value of naval, military and air equipment sent directly to Portuguese overseas territories during the past year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish in HANSARD details of all arms exported to Portugal between 1st January and 15th March, 1961, and since 15th March; and what steps are being taken to ensure that arms supplied to Portugal for use in the fulfilment of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation obligations will not be used in the Portuguese overseas territories.

As it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give details of arms supplied for foreign Governments, I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th June and yesterday.

On the eve of a debate on the situation in Angola, is the Lord Privy Seal telling the House that we are not entitled to know what quantities of British arms have been supplied to be used by the Portuguese to massacre the people in Angola? Does he propose to refuse this information to the House? Will he tell us how the Government will ensure that arms now supplied to Portugal will not continue to be used to massacre people in Angola?

It is a long-standing policy of Governments on both sides of the House not to give details of arms supplied to other countries, whether by Governments or by private purchase. With regard to policy towards Portugal and Angola, it has been clearly announced to the House that any orders for Portuguese overseas territories are in suspense. As for Portugal herself, the arms are examined to see whether they are in accord with her N.A.T.O. requirements. It is for the Government to decide whether that is so or not.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say why he has not answered the second part of Question No. 29, which does not ask for details and which the Prime Minister did not answer yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer it now? What steps are being taken?

The steps being taken are that the arms which are supplied have to be seen by Her Majesty's Government to be in accordance with N.A.T.O. requirements.

With regard to Question No. 27, is it not a fact that no arms were supplied last year directly to Portuguese territories because they were all sent to Portugal for trans-shipment? Does not this make complete nonsense of the Prime Minister's promise not to send any in future?

I do not think it does, because, as I explained, supplies of arms have to be seen to be within N.A.T.O. requirements.

is it not a fact that almost the whole of Portugal's effective fighting forces are at present serving in Angola and that therefore any arms sent to Portugal are likely to be used there rather than anywhere else? Can the Lord Privy Seal give a straight answer to a straight question: have Her Majesty's Government asked the Portuguese Government for any assurances that arms supplied under N.A.T.O. arrangements will not be used in Angola?

No, Sir. The arms which are supplied for N.A.T.O. requirements are very often, in fact almost entirely, of a different type from the sort of arms which can be used in a colonial territory or colonial type of territory such as Angola.

When the right hon. Gentleman relies on precedent in this matter and says that these figures are not generally revealed to the House, will he recall that at the time of Suez the detailed figures of arms supplied during the previous few years to Egypt and Israel were given to this House? Will he look up those figures? Is it because we happen to have this alliance with Portugal that facts similar to those which were revealed on a previous occasion are denied to the House?

I will look up the precedent cited by the hon. Gentleman, but the statement of general policy as I made it remains.

Are not we bound under the Arms Traffic Convention of 1920 to publish licences of arms which we sell abroad? Have the Government repudiated that obligation?

No, Sir, but I will see what our obligations are under that Convention.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct the Government's representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to insist that all contingency planning should be based on strict respect for the restrictions on the right to resort to force laid down in the Charter of the United Nations.

The plans and policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are, as has been repeatedly stated, purely defensive and fully consistent with the United Nations Charter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear reply to the effect that the Government will not associate themselves with any contingency planning which contemplates resort to force without the authorisation of the Security Council, except as a measure of defence against armed attack? Is he aware that resort to force in any other circumstances would constitute aggression and violation of the Charter? Will he assure the House and the country that the Government's contingency planning does not include aggression and violation of the Charter?

We shall continue to plan for all eventualities and to carry out our obligations under the Charter.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory and, in fact, menacing nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement concerning the negotiations to establish a neutral status for Laos.

The Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Boun Oum, held conversations with Prince Souvanna Phouma and Prince Souphanouvong at Zurich from 18th to 22nd June. The three Princes issued a communiqué recording their agreement in principle to form a provisional coalition government and a single delegation to the Conference at Geneva. The communiqué also outlined a list of tasks to which the new Government would address itself when formed, including the pursuit of a neutral policy. The three Princes have announced their intention to meet again in order to complete the task of making the new Government.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect a further conference to take place? Does he agree that unless it takes place soon and agreement is reached there is danger of Laos becoming divided into two States instead of being unified as an independent and neutral State?

The date does not depend on us, but we understand that the three Princes have it in mind to meet during the course of this month. As to the latter part of the supplementary question, I think that all the parties to the Geneva Conference have announced their desire to see a unified as well as an independent neutral Laos.

Will the Lord Privy Seal clear up confusion, at any rate in my mind, about Press reports of an agreement which may or may not have been reached concerning the supply of transport and other facilities to the International Commission in Laos?

The Conference has been discussing the request of the Commission and how this should be met, but it has not yet been possible to reach agreement between the two Co-Chairmen as to the way it should be done.