asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding negotiations for an agreed off-shore fisheries limit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the widespread uncertainty in the fishing industry consequent on the failure of the Geneva Conference, he will now make a statement about his recent discussions with other Governments on the question of fishing limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is aware that under conditions in which one country fixes a three-mile zone and another a twelve-mile zone unilaterally for fishing, and pending a satisfactory solution to the problem, the lives of United Kingdom fishermen are in constant danger and the cost of fishing patrols increases; and if he will seek a further meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Law of the Sea to reconsider the matter; and

Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the problems resulting from the failure of the recent Conference on the Law of the Sea. There is, unfortunately, no reason to think that if a further conference were convened it would be more successful. We are, however, continuing consultations with other countries through diplomatic channels on the question of stabilising fishery relations generally. We remain anxious to reach a settlement with Iceland and are continuing our efforts to this end. I have nothing to add to replies already given about our discussions with Norway.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that time is getting very short? Does he agree that the trawler owners have done all they can, even by suspending their best skippers, to keep out of the twelve-mile limit? But the truce ends on 12th August. After that date, will they have full naval protection in fishing up to the internationally recognised limits?

The Government are appreciative of the action taken by the fishing industry in trying to avoid incidents. I am afraid that I am not in a position to say what will happen after 12th August if the restrictions are removed.

As this is possibly the last opportunity we shall have to question the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, does not the Minister think that he ought to be a little more forthcoming? Does he not realise that, if no further agreement is reached, the situation on 12th August will be extremely serious in the main fishing ports? Will he at least tell us whether he proposes to make another statement to the industry and country before 12th August?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in touch with the industry over all these matters, and will continue to keep in touch with it, and negotiations are proceeding. There is no reason, therefore, to be too despairing about the position after 12th August.

Can we not have a categorical assurance that, in the absence of an agreement, Her Majesty's Government will protect British trawling fleets exercising their rights within the limits recognised at present by international law?

At the moment, Her Majesty's ships are patrolling outside the twelve-mile limit in order to avoid incidents, but without prejudice in any way to our legal rights. What happens after 12th August is hypothetical and must depend on the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, in accordance with Article 35 of the Charter, bring the dispute between the United States of America and Cuba to the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of Sate for Foreign Affairs whether, in relation to the dispute between the United States of America and Cuba, he will draw the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations to the need for the strict observance of the provisions of the Charter relating to non-interference in the internal affairs of member-States.

The Security Council decided on 19th July to adjourn the consideration of this question pending the receipt of a report from the Organisation of American States. The latter were invited to lend their assistance towards the achievement of a peaceful solution of the present situation

"in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations".

Does the Foreign Secretary remember what happened when an appeal from Guatemala was referred by the Security Council to the Organisation of American States? Does he remember then saying in the House that such a thing must never happen again?

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remind me of my actual words and their context. I think it is in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter that this procedure should be adopted. In this case, I think that the States of Latin America are more likely to be able to handle this situation.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that last time there was something very like a sponsored revolution, which was protected by this procedure? Will he make sure that the sane thing does not happen now?

I am not quite certain where the sponsorship comes from at present.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall what happened in Guatemala, quite apart from what happened in Suez and other places? In view of certain statements and certain comments made about what might happen in the next few weeks in relation to Cuba, will not he carry out the suggestion made in my Question of drawing the attention of the parties concerned to the need for observing non-interference in the affairs of Member States?

That is exactly what the resolution says. It asks people in the meantime to refrain from any action which might increase the tension. I would point out that no votes were cast against this resolution; nine members of the Security Council voted for it and two—the Soviet Union and Poland—abstained.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received assurances from the United States Government, similar to the assurances given by the United States Government to Norway and Pakistan, that no reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory or Eastern Europe will be made in future by United States aircraft from bases in Great Britain.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to previous answers on this subject, and, in particular, to that given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th July.

Do we understand from that reply that we have had such an assurance from the United States?

No. What the right hon. Gentleman may take from the reply is that we are satisfied with the assurance which has been given by the President of the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, he will ask the West German Government to end agreement between German and French firms on joint production of plutonium, lithium and other raw materials for atomic and hydrogen bombs.

No, Sir. It is no part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's function to serve as a channel for such a request. In any case, I have no evidence of such an agreement.

Will the Foreign Secretary study the Frankfurter Rundschau of 16th February and Der Spiegel of last August which reported secret agreements between the German and French Defence Ministries covering scientific, technical and financial co-operation in the production of the French bombs?

I am quite satisfied with the assurance which we have received that there is no German participation in the French nuclear programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no instructions will be given to the United Kingdom representative at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to support any proposal put before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which has as its object the provision to the West German Government of control over nuclear missiles, such as the Polaris with a range of 1,500 miles, unless and until the subject has been debated in this House.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained very clearly on 14th July that there is no question of the West German Government being given control of nuclear weapons.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that there is no question under any N.A.T.O. arrangements of the Polaris missile being supplied to West German forces in such a way that they can have independent use of it?

There is no such proposal, and I know of no intention to put such a proposal forward.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that reports in The Times and other newspapers today state that M. Spaak has been discussing the possibility of giving the French Gov ernment outright control of Polaris missiles, to which they can fit their own warheads? Would not this constitute a dangerous precedent for West Germany?

This question deals with West Germany. I am not responsible for discussions which it may be alleged that M. Spaak has had with the French Government.

Is it not a fact that the West German Government do not want Polaris?

I have not had any information that they want Polaris.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the ending of conscription in Great Britain and the reduction of manpower in the Soviet armed forces, he will reconsider proposals for some form of disengagement in Europe.

I dealt with this matter at length during the foreign affairs debate on 10th and 11th February and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

In view of the smaller armies in Britain and in Russia, would not a withdrawal of forces have mutual advantages and, therefore, be a likely subject for agreement?

We have debated the theory of disengagement on many occasions. To draw the forces of the Great Powers apart and to leave only the small countries in the middle would, I think, add to insecurity and not to security. I developed that point in the debate to which I referred. I think that the best approach to this matter is under the heading of anti-surprise attack measures. That is the way in which we hoped to approach it at the Ten-Power Disarmament Conference, and we are sorry that that Conference has been suspended.

I understood the Foreign Secretary to say, in the debate to which he has referred, that Her Majesty's Government had certain proposals in relation to the prevention of surprise attack. Is it the intention to put these proposals forward, either through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to the Soviet Union and its allies?

Proposals were put forward under this head in 1957.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in preparing a further agreed Western disarmament plan, he will seek to embody the French proposals on means of delivery.

There are no separate French proposals on the means of delivery of nuclear weapons. Proposals on this matter were already included in the Western plan of March, 1960, which was supported by France. The revised United States plan of 27th June, which has Her Majesty's Government's general support, includes more far-reaching proposals on this subject.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that an agreement for the establishment of an appropriate system of control of bomber bases and rocket sites, pending the achievement of agreement for the total abolition of nuclear weapons, might make a very substantial contribution to the problems which arise from the danger of fear of surprise attack?

We have been in general sympathy with the French view about trying to give increased priority to this matter. Indeed, increased priority has been given in the revised United States plan. But the French Government themselves have never put this forward as a proposal in isolation from all other disarmament measures. We should regard them as right in that.

While acknowledging that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has several times given some support to M. Moch's proposals, will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will try to secure the abolition of all means of delivery as quickly as possible?

Certainly, in proper relationship to other measures of disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what authority Her Majesty's Embassy staff in Vienna took part in the boycott of Mr. Khrushchev's arrival in Austria; and what was the reason for associating them with this action.

In accordance with his instructions, Her Majesty's Ambas sador in Vienna conformed with Austrian official practice. This does not normally, and did not on this occasion, provide for the attendance of heads of mission at the airport on the arrival of an official guest of the Austrian Government.

I am grateful for that reply. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the Press reports of a deliberate boycott, as an act of discourtesy initiated by the Americans, were not accurate and that no such move was intended?

There was no such boycott. I think there was no more resentment than I felt at the fact that the Soviet Ambassador did not meet me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests he has received from the Katanga Province of the Congo Republic; and what replies he has sent.

On 10th July, Mr. Tshombe, Prime Minister of the Provincial Government of Katanga, asked for military assistance, and on 11th July he asked for police assistance. In answering a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 11th July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to the House what replies had been made to these two requests from Mr. Tshombe.

As Katanga is not an independent State, is not it the position that any reply to its request would be conveyed through Mr. Lumumba? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, during his friendly discussions with Mr. Lumumba on Saturday, the Minister of State discussed this question? Does the Foreign Secretary fully support the United Nations in the request that Belgian troops should be withdrawn from Katanga?

The hon. Member will recall the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about dealing with the Central Government of the Congo. With regard to his question about the conversations between the Minister of State and Mr. Lumumba, I have had no report that this matter was raised at all. I would rather deal with his last point during the later Questions abort this aspect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation following the arrival of the United Nations' Forces in the Congo Republic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Security Council's decision concerning the situation in the Congo.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Congo and the position of the United Nations forces there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether effect has now been given to the decision of the Security Council that all Belgian troops should be withdrawn from the Congo Republic.

The latest reports from the Congo show that United Nations forces are now deployed there in considerable numbers and are still arriving. This U.N. operation seems to be proceeding smoothly and satisfactorily and has already had a calming effect. The withdrawal of Belgian troops from places where the U.N. troops have been able to provide security is going on; it has already been completed in Leopoldville itself.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether it is the policy of the Security Council that all Belgian troops shall leave the Congo Republic? If so, can he say whether, in arriving at this decision, the Security Council considered the validity of the alleged agreement made between that Republic and the Belgian Government?

I think that there are three issues involved here, and I really would hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would exercise some restraint. The first task is to try to get law and order secured. There are vast territories of the Congo where there is no law and order at the present time, so that it is very important that the first task of the United Nations should be to get that law and order restored. It is going on very fast. More troops are coming in quickly, and they are able to take over in difficult places. We hope that in this vast territory—the size of Western Europe—we shall get some system of law and order.

We all have great sympathy with the Foreign Secretary's general attitude on this matter, and I think he will agree that the Opposition has shown restraint in not pressing the matter too hard in the last week. But would he not agree that the fact that the Belgian troops still seem to be remaining in the Congo in areas where the United Nations have already established law and order is in itself likely to endanger the chances of establishing law and order in the rest of the area? While I think all of us on this side of the House appreciate the desire of the Belgian Government to protect its own nationals, I do not think we could support Belgian troops remaining in the Congo when the United Nations troops have taken over, and we would even more strongly oppose the use of Belgian troops in influencing the constitutional future of the Congo. This latter danger, particularly in Katanga, is a matter of even greater importance than the use of United Nations troops.

I think that the Belgian troops are withdrawing where the United Nations troops are able to take over, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a territory the size of Western Europe. Katanga itself is the size of Spain. There are only 6,000 United Nations troops there at the moment. This is a tremendous task; there is literally chaos. Therefore, it is right that the Belgian troops should withdraw where the United Nations have established law and order. I do not think the Belgian troops should withdraw on the offchance that the United Nations will be able to do it all over the country. I think they must wait for the gradual restoration.

In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that Katanga is part of the Congo and will remain part of the Congo,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—do I misunderstand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's promise that there is no attempt to dissociate Katanga from the Congo Republic? If it is a part of the Congo Republic, does he not agree that as the Belgian troops are a source of discontent, they ought to be removed as quickly as possible from Katanga and to be replaced by United Nations forces?

I do not think it is for Her Majesty's Government to try to settle this matter. I have said before that we hope for the unity of the Congo, but there is such a thing as self-determination and there are many different tribes, and although one hopes to keep a unitary State, whether it is a federal State or a Confederation, it is not a matter for us to deal with. I hope the United Nations Secretary General will act in a mediatory rôle and will succeed in solving the constitutional problem, but it is not for me to express an opinion.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen a report in the Press of a statement made to a correspondent by General Van Horn, in which he said:

"You can take it as definite that we shall be taking over the whole of the southern provinces including Katanga. I have my instructions and they will be carried out"?

I have been in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations about this matter and he said—indeed, he has stated publicly—that he does not think United Nations troops should be used to settle internal constitutional problems. I have no reason to believe that anything to the contrary has been said by anybody else. In the meantime, I think the Secretary-General is going to the Congo himself and I have great confidence in his judgment of the situation. What we have to do is to try to mediate in this matter so that there is a satisfactory assurance by both sides, and we should try to ensure a unitary State. The consequences of Katanga contracting out of the Congo would be very serious indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ease the conditions attached to applications for a United Kingdom passport, in view of the growing popularity of holidays abroad and the difficulties resulting from the fact that an application must be authenticated and sponsored either by a Member of Parliament, justice of the peace, minister of religion, medical or legal practitioner, established civil servant, bank officer, public official, police officer or any person of similar standing who has been personally acquainted with the applicant for at least two years; and if he will give a list of those of similar standing whose signatures are acceptable to his Department.

Because of the need to establish the identity of an applicant for a passport, I am afraid there is no alternative to the present system of having the application countersigned by a responsible person. Persons of similar standing to those quoted on the form include any member of a professional body whose name can be checked in a published list, senior trade union officials, and personnel managers of large firms. Where a person is unable to obtain the countersignature of a qualified person, the Passport Office will always advise him as to the best course of action.

I thank the hon. Member for these additional classifications, which may be helpful. Is he aware that the other day I had the case of two people who had moved to the south of England from the north of Scotland. They have been twenty months in their new district, but it says on the form that it could be serious far a recommender if he were to sign it for such persons. It might not be possible for a person who moves to get the sort of signature demanded. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if a criminal wants to obtain a passport he will be able to do so? I am dealing with humble people who want a holiday and who are finding difficulties because of the conditions laid down in the form.

That is not true—

What is not true?

That a criminal can get a passport easily.

He can—easily.

These controls make it more difficult for him. Last year, 746,000 passports were issued. Only four or five people reported difficulty in obtaining signatures of a qualified person.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to avoid recriminations, threats or incidents as a result of differences between permanent members of the Security Council over such matters as the alleged violation of each other's air space, or policies in regard to the Congo or Cuba, he will instruct Her Majesty's representative on the Security Council to propose the working out and adoption of a code of co-existence between the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the French Republic, which would implement in their mutual relations the principles, purposes and obligations of the United Nations Charter, in particular, the provisions relating to respect for international law and treaty obligations and to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

I am all for a code of conduct, particularly one designed to establish that both sides mean the same thing by peaceful co-existence and one observed in fact as well as word. As the House knows, I had hoped that progress would be made at the Summit meeting, and I deeply regretted Mr. Khrushchev's refusal to discuss this sort of matter. I do not think that the Security Council is at present the place to pursue this idea.

Is not this proposal little different from the one referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? This is a suggestion that the permanent members of the Security Council, as such, having special responsibilities under the Charter, should work out a code of conduct which would include procedure for the regulation of their mutual relations. Would not an initiative on these lines help to prevent the kind of provocative incidents and violent language that have been flying around from both sides in the last few weeks?

I regret that we were not able to take up this matter at the Paris meeting. I do not think that the present time is opportune for the idea concerning the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the terms of the Anglo-Spanish Cultural Convention.

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he hopes to conclude the negotiations with the Japanese Government for the settlement of claims for compensation of British subjects arising out of the China incident.

I am glad to be able to say that we have recently received a fresh proposal from the Japanese Government. We are examining this, and I hope that a settlement may be reached soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the claimants in this case include not only commercial firms, who might be able to exist without undue hardship, but also many private individuals in straitened circumstances and of advancing age? Will he make quite sure that the new Japanese Government are aware of the very strong feeling there is that we should have a quick and satisfactory settlement?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and we much deplore the length of time it has taken to reach a settlement. We have, however, been assured that the new Japanese Government will honour the undertaking given by Mr. Kishi, which was contained in the joint communiqué issued after his visit here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will introduce legislation to remove the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, from the Schedule of Acts to which the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1890 to 1913, can be applied.

No, Sir.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the three Bahreinis are legally detained in St. Helena is based purely on the ipse dixit of the Foreign Secretary that he has jurisdiction over Bahreini citizens for this purpose, and will not he remove this blot from the British Statute Book and thereby make it impossible for a British Government to repeat this perversion of justice by which these men are detained in St. Helena?

I do not accept anything of what the hon. Member says. I am told also, although this matter chiefly concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts is desirable for the proper care and custody of prisoners in a number of territories.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet come to a decision whether he will table for inclusion in the agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations a motion calling for the admission of the Chinese People's Republic to the Organisation, including permanent membership of the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the current quieter situation in the Far East, he will now propose the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations.

I have already stated on a number of occasions Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter. I have nothing to add.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has agreed that there is very little hope of getting a comprehensive agreement on disarmament until China is a party to the disarmament talks, and as there is no hope of China coming into those talks until she is a member of the United Nations, will not the British Government have the courage of their own convictions and give a lead to the recognition of China during the forthcoming General Assembly?

One has to have regard to the facts of the international situation, and also to the views of a large number of other friendly Governments, and I must say that my view continues to be that it would not be appropriate to put down such a motion at the present time.

I have two questions to ask of the Foreign Secretary. First, is he aware that I hope that he enjoys the same success in his new post that he has enjoyed in his present one? Secondly, may I ask him what conditions he envisages would make it possible for Her Majesty's Government actually to propose the admission of China to the United Nations?

We have debated this question again and again. What I have always said is that, if one is to start a course of conduct which may split the United Nations, it will defeat the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind for enlarging the United Nations.

But does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in the last two foreign affairs debates there was unanimous support for the admission of Communist China to the United Nations from his own side of the House as well as from this? Has not the time come to end this silly farce of treating the Chiang Kai-shek Government as representative of the Chinese people? Will not he take into account the views of a very large number of friendly Governments which take the same view on the matter as do Her Majesty's Opposition?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that we recognise the Chiang Kai-shek Government. We do not, and we have not done so for some years. But the point is, do we, in fact, improve the international organisation and make it more comprehensive by advocating a course of conduct or procedure which will, in fact, split the United Nations, and which might very easily involve its falling apart altogether? That is the consideration.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, whatever the British Government may do to try to end what has been described as a "silly farce", it remains within the competence of the American Government to veto the suggestion that the People's Republic of China should be introduced into the United Nations and into the Security Council, and that whatever we do, we cannot prevent that?

This is not, of course, a question of the admission of Communist China but a question of which Government is recognised as the lawful representative of China. I would not like to pronounce, without notice, on the question whether the veto would apply in the Security Council on a matter like that.

Can the Foreign Secretary say what contribution is made to world peace by the refusal to recognise the Chinese People's Republic, which is a fait accompli? Is it not the case that the policy of the Government is in support of the Chinese Republic being a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council? Is not that their policy? Are we being subservient to the United States in the matter?

We have recognised the Government of the People's Republic, and all we have said is that we think that the time is not yet ripe to consider the question of the Chinese seat in the United Nations.

Does it not follow from what the Foreign Secretary has said that the Chinese People's Republic is, in fact, a member of the United Nations, that we are denying the rights of representation in the Security Council and the General Assembly which belong to that Republic under the Charter, and that we ourselves are in breach of the Charter? Has he not heard it very frequently said in New York that, if the British Government would state what they know to be the true position on principle, the American resistance would disappear?

I do not believe that, certainly not at a time like this, when the right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances concerned. The point is that we have recognised this Government, and we think that time must bring a solution to the problem, but we think that to precipitate the issue now, and insist on raising it now, would mean running the very grave danger of the withdrawal from the United Nations of a large number of States. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want that, I think that they are making a very great mistake.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet decided when he will release Mr. Rahman al Baker, and two other Bahreinis sentenced with him, from detention on St. Helena.

I have at present nothing to add to my reply of 29th June.

The Foreign Secretary will recall that, in his reply on that occasion, he suggested that he was considering remitting the rest or part of the remainder of the sentence. Can he say when he is going to take a decision on the matter? It has been in front of him for several years. Is he aware that it is the unanimous view of many people—I think most of the Opposition—that the continual imprisonment of these subjects of a foreign State in Her Majesty's prisons is absolutely intolerable?

I have never said that I would consider remitting the sentence. I do not think I have any power to do so. I said that I would enter into discussion with those concerned to see what can be done. I have done that, and I still hope for favourable results.

Do we have to take action? Surely the only action that we can take is to hand these men back to their lawful ruler?

That may well be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the independent State of Somaliland has now exchanged diplomatic representatives with this country; and how many Somalis in this country have now been classified as aliens.

The union between Somaliland and Somalia to form the Somali Republic was acclaimed on 1st July and Mr. T. E. Bromley presented his credentials as first British Ambassador to the Republic on that date. The Somali Republic have not yet appointed a diplomatic representative in London.

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the diplomatic representative from the Somali Republic will be appointed to London? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to acquaint Somalis in this country, of whom there are a large number—I think more than 1,500—of their position in the matter so that they may take action to secure either British or Somali citizenship?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he attended the independence celebrations, discussed this matter and indicated that we would be very glad to receive a representative as soon as he could be found. I cannot give any date for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position of the Somaliland Scouts.

With the attainment of independence by Somaliland on 26th June, control over the Somaliland Scout; passed to the Government of Somaliland. At this time, I should like to say how much their high traditions of loyal and disciplined service have been valued by successive Governments in this country.

I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's tribute, but has his attention been called to the report that the Somaliland Scouts have not been handed over to the new Government of the Republic because it was said that the ex-British Somalis did not have their fair share of Ministerial posts in the now Government? Could he comment on that?

There is a little uncertainty at the moment as to the extent to which the Act of Union has been consummated, but I gather that someone from Somaliland is the Minister of Defence in the projected Government, so perhaps he will be able to look after the Somaliland Scouts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by his Department in the study of proposals for zones of limited arms in Europe and elsewhere.

I do not know to which particular study the hon. Member is referring. On the question of zones of arms limitation, I have nothing to add to my statements in the Foreign Affairs debates on 11th February and 12th May.

At the eleventh hour of his term of office, will not the Foreign Secretary now repent and remember the communiqué signed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow in January, 1959, which put forward the proposal for a study of limited arms zones as a separate means of trying to relax tension, getting East-West agreement and helping forward negotiations for disarmament? Are we to take it from his reply that this has now been completely abandoned, or was it regarded as a propaganda stunt?

No, the reference in the communiqué was to a joint study with the Russians, and not a study by my Department. That is another reason why I regret the fact that they have terminated the Ten-Power Conference. I had hoped, as I said earlier, that under the heading of anti-surprise measures we should have come down to a discussion, at all events, on zones of inspection.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the total contributions of Great Britain have been, to date, to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation.

The total amount contributed by the United Kingdom to the budgets of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation from 1st April, 1956, to 30th June, 1960, was £138,558.

Does that amount include, for instance, 5·5 million dollars scheduled by S.E.A.T.O. reports up to 1st October, 1958 for economic aid? Secondly, that amount obviously does not include the cost of contributions to the military exercises, six of which have taken place since 1954. Can we, therefore, have an accurate statement of our contributions, military and economic, say, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in the near future?

The figure that I gave includes all the contributions made to the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. What the hon. Gentleman is referring to is a much wider question of what aid we give under the Colombo Plan—

Military.

No, not military—what economic aid we give under the Colombo Plan. Something like £190 million has gone from this country since the war through the Colombo Plan, and some £9 million in technical aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose at the United Nations that the Arctic zone should be made a neutral area and that all flights to investigate electro-magnetic phenomena in that area should be carried out only under United Nations auspices.

The hon. Member will remember that in the Security Council in May, 1958, the United States Government offered to join in making the Arctic an inspection area, but the Soviet Union refused.

In view of recent developments, should not Her Majesty's Government proceed with the idea of the Arctic being made a neutral zone? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he has been associated with making the Antarctic a neutral zone? Why not the Arctic? Even if the Soviet Government have refused, why not put it to them again?

If the hon. Gentleman is able to promise me some change in the Soviet attitude, I should certainly consider putting it up again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with President Frondizi.

I was present with the Argentine Foreign Minister at one discussion between the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The President and my right hon. Friend also had one meeting alone. The communiqué which was issued from No. 10 Downing Street on 7th July and published in the national Press accurately summarised the nature of these discussions. I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

"The Prime Minister and President Frondizi…agreed that the United Kingdom and Argentina had a common interest in the preservation of peace, democracy and justice and in the promotion of economic progress".

"The President and the Prime Minister observed with satisfaction the excellent relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom and agreed that these could be intensified by ever closer contacts of all kinds".

Is it not the fact also that at that discussion—according to what I am led to believe—the President of Argentina made it clear that, since Cuba had committed no external aggression, he failed to see why there should be any cause for outside interference? Was that view accepted at the meeting to which the Foreign Secretary has referred?

There was not a scintilla of difference in approach between the Argentine Government and our own to the problem of Cuba.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an exhibition of British paintings has recently been held ha Peking; and what steps he is taking to encourage cultural relations with China.

Yes, Sir. We are studying, in consultation with the British Council, the possibilities of encouraging cultural relations with China.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but has his attention been drawn to the remarkable success of the exhibition of British paintings in Moscow and Leningrad recently held under the best possible auspices? Is there not a sad contrast between our cultural relations with the Soviet Union and those with China, and, in spite of the difficulties, will he press ahead in an effort to achieve results?

Yes, certainly.

On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? There are a number of Questions to the Minister of Health on the Order Paper? The Minister of Health has resigned and has retired to the third bench below the Gangway. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, which Minister is authorised to give a Written Answer to these Questions?

The answer to the right hon. Lady's mystery is that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been recorded on the Order Paper in lieu of the Minister had we had time physically to make the requisite alteration.