I ask the leave of the House to present a Petition from many thousands of residents in North and East London, particularly 6,000 residents of my own constituency, which showeth that the housing position is extremely grave, that many thousands of families are forced to live in overcrowded conditions and that thousands of others in the area lack essential amenities.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to deal with this distressing problem.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations voted on the section of the resolution deprecating apartheidin South-West Africa, which was approved by 90 votes to nil with three abstentions.

In the vote to which the hon. Member refers, the United Kingdom delegate abstained.

Is there no explanation of the Government being once again one of the three nations which abstained, especially as the Government on 15th December accepted a Motion moved by myself agreeing to take action in the United Nations about the attitude of the South African Government? Is not this in line with what the Government are now doing about the landing of ratings at Gibraltar? How do the Government expect to command any respect in the country if every time they have the chance to stand up for decency they turn tail and run away?

If the hon. Member will read the resolution and the explanations of vote on the resolution, he will understand the matter very much better. I can assure him that nobody at the United Nations accepted his view that by abstaining on this resolution we were in any way encouraging the policy of apartheid.

Is it not the case that 90 nations voted on this resolution and we were in company with France and Portugal as the only countries which abstained? Is it not a contemptible attitude for the Government to take?

I do not think that it is at all contemptible if we are in the right, and I believe that on this occasion we were in the right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the resolution dealt with a matter which, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, had already been referred to the International Court by two African countries.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the Icelandic Government over fishing limits.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations with Iceland for a fisheries limits agreement.

Since my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 19th December, my noble Friend has had discussions with the Icelandic Foreign Minister. We remain in close touch with the Icelandic Government and await their views on the latest position. I regret that I cannot say more at present.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the industry has been very patient during the long period of negotiations? Will he also agree that any agreement, when reached, must show that the Icelandic Government do not propose some years hence to go beyond the 12 mile limit?

I willingly pay tribute to the patience of the industry, which has now extended over a long period. The terms of any agreement to be reached are being negotiated at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the time factor in mind? Daring the last two months there has not been much danger of any incidents because there has been no fishing off Iceland, but the spring fishing season is about to begin and, unless skippers have clear instructions about what the position is, we shall once again be back to the old round of incidents.

We are acutely aware that the onset of spring may well bring renewed dangers, and we have pointed that out very forcibly to the Icelandic Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reply Her Majesty's Government have sent to the communication they have received from the Chinese Government regarding Laos.

No written reply has been made to the Chinese Foreign Minister's letters of 28th December and 15th January. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has personally explained our attitude to the Chinese Government and has given them a copy of the proposal for the return of the International Commission which we have made to the Soviet Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is happening and if there is any further news about the proposal he has been making to the Soviet Government?

No. We have as yet received no definite reply from the Soviet Government.

In view of the very long delay which has unfortunately taken place since the Government first committed themselves to bring about a return of the International Commission to Laos, will not the Lord Privy Seal now consider supporting this demand for an intenational conference which, though it may take time to organise, could still come about before the International Commission gets back?

The time taken up in the communications about the International Commission was in endeavouring to secure agreement between those involved. We are now awaiting a reply from the Soviet Government, and we very much hope that they will be in agreement. To start now on the second course of trying to get agreement about the conference will undoubtedly also take a certain time. Therefore, we are indeed hopeful that we may get agreement on the International Commission and get that under way.

As the right hon. Gentleman admits that it may well take time to get the conference convened and since it is quite clear from what has transpired in the last few months that a final settlement in Laos will require a conference, would it not be wise now in any case to set the proceedings in motion so that the conference may be recalled?

On a point of order. Is there not a Question on this subject at No. 18?

I am sorry about this. I did not appreciate that that was the same point.

It is not the same point. I did not refer to the Cambodian Government's proposals for a 14-nation conference. I referred simply to an international conference.

We visualise that the International Commission will be able to get under way first. That is our desire.

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal—

No. I think we must get on.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the situation in Laos following his proposal for the resummoning of the International Commission for Supervision and Control.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what replies he has received from the Soviet Government to his latest proposals for re-establishing the International Commission in Laos.

Her Majesty's Government have not yet received the Soviet Government's considered comments on the proposals which we put to them on 21st January. There have been further exchanges of view with the Soviet Government, but they are still considering their reply.

Does the Lord Privy Seal appreciate that the right wing rebel, General Phoumi Nosavan, is now clearly determined to fight it out with the support of Siam, South Vietnam and the American military forces, and that in this situation there is a very grave danger of the whole conflict snowballing into one involving the Great Powers? Has it not now got beyond the bounds of something to be dealt with even by an International Commission? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of urgently setting about preparing for the resummoning of the Geneva Conference powers?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's account of events or of the present position. It is because of the danger involved in the situation in Laos that we have been endeavouring as earnestly as we can to secure the return of the Commission.

I do not in any way suggest that only one side is at fault in the dispute. Is not the Minister aware that this is an inordinately slow procedure which is being gone through? What is being assumed about the terms of reference of the International Commission? Is it being assumed that they will be the same as they used to be? Fresh terms of reference will be needed, and a conference will be needed for that also.

These discussions are going on through diplomatic channels and have been pressed forward by Her Majesty's Government as hard as they could. On the nature of the discussions, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me la reveal the proposals made in the exchange of notes with the Soviet Ministers.

Has the King of Laos agreed to the return of the Commission? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he does not consider that the agreement of the so-called Government of Prince Boun Oum is required before the Commission can return?

We cannot get to the stage of the King of Laos having a request to receive the Commission until there has been general agreement that the Commission should be brought into being again and the necessary procedure has been gone through.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the nature of the proposal he has received from the Government of Cambodia for a 14-nation conference on Laos; and what reply he has sent.

Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia proposed in a letter to the Prime Minister dated 1st January that a conference of fourteen interested states should be held in a neutral Asian country in order to bring peace to Laos. My right hon. Friend replied in a letter dated 13th January. I will, with permission, circulate the correspondence in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While awaiting the correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate, in view of the fact that it now seems unlikely that the Control Commission will be reconvened, will not the right hon. Gentleman give his support to this proposal for a conference in view of the fact that it would include the nations on the Control Commission, the nations which were represented at Geneva and the nations in South-East Asia which are concerned in the Laotian problem?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Prime Minister's reply, he will see that he set out our attitude towards this proposal but also emphasised, as I have already told the House, a desire to see the Commission in action in order to bring about a cease fire in Laos. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that it is now unlikely that the Commission will be accepted. We must await the reply of the Soviet Government.

This correspondence having been disclosed, why has the Prime Minister made an exception to his rule that correspondence between heads of Government should be kept confidential?

As my right hon. Friend found that his letter had been published in Cambodia, it was thought only right to make it available here.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will grant de jurerecognition to the present Government of Laos.

No formal act of de jurerecognition is required.

If no formal act of de jurerecognition is required, does it mean that we are now giving de factorecognition to this overthrow of a legitimate Government?

De jurerecognition is required only where there is a change of regime. In this case, the régime in Laos has been unchanged. Where the Government itself changes, then another Government enters into working arrangements with it, which is what we have done with the present Government in Laos.

Has the Lord Privy Seal's attention been drawn to the recent Press conference in which the Minister of Education, speaking under the chairmanship of Prince Boun Oum, the Prime Minister of the so-called Government of Laos, admitted that reports recently circulated by the Laotian Government about the entry of Vietnam formations into Laos were totally false and had been circulated only in order to strengthen the morale of people of Laos? In view of this and many other similar facts, can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that he will not consider the Government of Prince Boun Oum as the legal Government of Laos?

That is a completely different question.

In connection with the recognition of any particular Government in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the supplementary question asked him a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in which he asked about the terms of reference of the International Commission which the Government of Great Britain would like to see returned? Were not those original terms of reference to implement agreements reached at Geneva in 1954, and, as those agreements seem long ago to have been discarded, is it not the case, as my hon. Friend said, that new terms of reference would be desirable?

I do not see what that has to do with de jure recognition?

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the three Bahraini citizens detained on St. Helena.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Bahraini prisoners now in St. Helena.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action he now proposes to take with regard to the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now assure the House that the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned on St. Helena in respect of convictions before a special court in Bahrain will not be sent back to Bahrain without their consent.

As the answer is long, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, answer these Questions together at the end of Questions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has completed his consideration of the factors involved in the provision of passport photographs of British subjects to the police of foreign Governments; and what decision has now been made in this matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why he made available for transmission to the French authorities a copy of a passport photograph of Mr. Leigh Vance.

Passport photographs have in certain circumstances been supplied to the police and transmitted by them to police forces abroad for the purpose of investigating crime. In this case, I am informed that copies of the passport photographs of Mr. Leigh Vance were sent to the French police at their express request to investigate an alleged offence.

I greatly appreciate that response of the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him whether it is not wrong in principle that photographs which are supplied to the Government for the protection of citizens bearing passports should be handed over to the police of other countries for their prosecution, particularly when the police methods in those other countries in the use of the photographs would not be accepted in the practice of British justice?

I do not think that the House would wish the use of these photographs to be denied where serious crime is involved. Under the new arrangement which I have just announced they would be so available. It is the fact, as announced on the passport form, that the photograph which is sent becomes the property of the Government. The balance between the individual and the use of the photograph for serious public purpose; is a difficult matter, but I hope that we have now struck the balance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case Mr. Leigh Vance was advised by Scotland Yard not to send a photograph of himself? Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman's Department made one available to the French authorities. No charge could have been proceeded with if this had not been done, because the incident to which it referred took place many months ago. As a result, Mr. Leigh Vance has been put to considerable expense. As the new ruling would have prevented this considerable expense, will the right hon. Gentleman consider some compensation?

I could not give any undertaking about the last part of the hon. Member's question. I have studied this matter and there is a slight difference in the account which was given of the discussion which took place about Mr. Vance sending a photograph himself. The subsequent part of the procedure—the police forwarding the photograph—was done under the regulations or the procedure existing at the time, which, as I have explained to the House, had been in existence for many years but which has now been changed by my announcement today.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the total amount of cash, food, clothing and medical equipment which Her Majesty's Government has supplied for the relief of starvation and distress to the people of the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the suffering in the Congo and the response by private citizens to the various appeals for aid to the people there, he will substantially increase Her Majesty's Government's grant towards helping the victims of famine in that territory.

asked the Lord Privy Seal on what basis Her Majesty's Government decided to contribute £5,000 in response to the appeal for emergency aid by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on behalf of the large numbers of starving human beings in the Congo.

Since my statement on 25th January, we have had a report from the member of the Embassy in Leopoldville who has visited the famine area. This indicates that without United Nations assistance South Kasai might have lost up to half its population, but with its assistance there seems every chance that the famine and its effects will be controlled. Ninety-five tons of food are being brought into the area by road and air every day. The food is being distributed by the local Congolese and seeds are being sown.

While warmly appreciative of the sympathetic and helpful attitude of the Government and of other Governments, may I ask whether, in view of the somewhat horrifying pictures, photographs and reports that have come in to us from the Congo during the last few weeks, we could not possibly do more? If transport is the problem, as was mentioned in the papers today, why is it that the United Nations were able to hire ten American aircraft to take back the United Arab Republic contingent to Cairo? Surely, starvation should be dealt with first. Could we not do it ourselves, if necessary?

I had seen the statement of the secretary of the Oxford Famine Relief Fund about the use of transport and we are making further inquiries to see whether we can assist in that respect, although our transport is already greatly stretched. The allocation of United Nations transport is a matter for the Secretary-General and his representatives.

In view of the report which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House, is he really satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they ought to be doing? Is this the way we defend Western values?

That is exactly what we have done. We have shown an example to the rest of the world by making, proportionately, such a large sum available to the United Nations as the 3 million dollars which has been paid and the 2 million dollars which has been promised. As I said last Wednesday, however, we are entitled to say to the United Nations that in an operation of this kind we expect others to make a contribution to it. We have made a considerable contribution from the point of view of transport in finding where food was available and helping to transport it and in the specific donation which we gave in answer to the request for seed for sowing. As I have told the House, that operation is now completed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private individuals and firms would support him in this appeal for foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing, provided that the appeal came from the Government and provided that those individuals and firms were satisfied that the supplies went to the people who really needed them and not, as sometimes has happened, into the black market?

In this country, these funds are usually organised by voluntary organisations, and Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence in the Red Cross and the Oxford Fund for carrying out this work.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will instruct the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations to propose an extension of the terms of reference of the United Nations intervention in the Congo so as to include initiatives for a political settlement by the release of Patrice Lumumba and other political prisoners, the reassembly of the elected Parliament with the right to appoint a Government, the summoning of a representative constitutional conference to determine the relationship between the regions and the centre, and the disarmament of the rival armies.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement about the situation in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose that the United Nations should take steps to secure the release of political prisoners in the Congo before the opening of the forthcoming round-table conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations action designed to ensure the strengthening of the United Nations forces in the Congo, the disarming of irregular troops including the Congolese National Army, the expulsion of Belgian officers and other ranks, and all other foreign troops, other than those of the United Nations, and the liberation of all Congolese political prisoners, including_ Mr. Patrice Lumumba.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement to the House concerning the forthcoming round table conference on the Congo; and what information he has as to whether the Prime Minister of the Congo will be able to attend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations that representations be made to President Kasavubu urging him to invite to the Congo round table conference, representatives of the various political, regional and tribal groups, and, in parti- cular, urging the attendance of Mr. Patrice Lumumba and his main supporters.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations that representations be made to President Kasavubu urging him to include Mr. Lumumba among those invited to attend the Congo round table conference.

Since the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, the situation in ',he Congo has radically changed. Mr. Gizenga and his supporters in Stanleyville have succeeded, by means of kidnapping the provincial authorities there, in establishing some control over the Kivu Province. They have also attempted to assert themselves in the northern part of the Katanga Province, in violation of a United Nations ban on troop movements in that area.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the great anxiety which many Members have lest the United Nations effort in the Congo may came to naught? Is it not the case that whilst the United Nations is correct in saying that it does not want to intervene in internal affairs on one side or the other, in effect its policy since the recognition of Mr. Kasavubu by the United Nations has been to support one side against the other? L there going to be any hope of a political settlement in the Congo unless Mr. Lumumba is released and unless an elected Parliament is able to meet freely and fully?

It will indeed be a serious situation if the United Nations effort in the Congo breaks down. On the other hand, if the United Nations were to try to impose its will by force in the Congo it would obviously become an even more serious situation in many respects. As far as the constitutional authority is concerned. the United Nations accepted the authority of Mr. Kasavubu, and I think it is helpful that there should be an accepted constitutional authority in the Congo. What we hope is that as a result of the round-table conference which he is trying to bring about, it will be possible to follow up with other constitutional developments so far as the provinces, the constitution, the Government and the assembly of Parliament are concerned.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is to be conciliation in the Congo, which we all want to see successfully brought about, and if there is to be a round-table conference representative of all political forces in the Congo, which is an indispensable condition, there should be a release of political prisoners before this conference is convened? Otherwise it is inevitable that its success and development will be jeopardised. In particular, the only man who has a constitutional claim to the premiership of the Congo should be at the conference and represented.

So far as political prisoners are concerned, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, there are, so to speak prisoners on both sides. Her Majesty's Government made their position absolutely plain in the resolution that we sponsored at the United Nations, that there should he no detention or ill-treatment and that all this should be done within the rule of law.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, may I ask him whether he has any comment to make on the removal of Mr. Lumumba to Elizabethville and the disgraceful way in which he was maltreated and beaten up on the way? Does he realise that Mr. Lumumba is still supported by large numbers of Congolese people who regard him as their only legal Prime Minister, and that the round-table conference would be utterly futile and dangerous if he were not present at it?

The matter of detention in the Congo is one for the authorities in the Congo. Her Majesty's Government deplore ill-treatment throughout the Congo.

Has not the United Nations a direct interest in seeing that this conference, when it is held, should reach a settlement satisfactory to all the contending parties? Does the right hon. Gentleman see any hope whatever of such a result if the Prime Minister, Mr. Lumumba, were actively prevented from attending it by either Colonel Mobutu who usurped military authority, or Mr. Tshombe who usurped authority in Katanga, by forcibly detaining him? Would not the result of that be to render the whole conference abortive, and, therefore, ought not the United Nations to do at any rate something to see that the conference shall be attended by all those whose contributions are necessary in order to reach a satisfactory solution?

The United Nations is represented on the spot by the Conciliation Commission, which is certainly acting energetically. I also understand that invitations were sent to the representatives of Mr. Lumumba in the Provinces.

As to the ban on the movement of troops to which my right bon Friend referred, can he tell me whether the United Nations has now lifted the ban on the movement by aircraft of troops in Katanga by Mr. Tshombe?

Not as far as I am aware.

In that case, will my right hon. Friend apply pressure to the United Nations for the immediate lifting of the ban?

Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that Mr. Lumumba, whatever his legal claims to be Prime Minister, is a personality ofalmost unique importance in the Congo situation? [Laughter.] Certainly; there is no doubt whatever about that. Secondly, would he not agree that one of the reasons for the present unhappy situation in the Congo is the progressive estrangement between a majority of the United Nations and an important group of States in Africa and outside concerning the precise status of Mr. Lumumba? Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether Her Majesty's Government are undertaking any action to end this estrangement?

It is, as I have already stated, an internal matter of the Congo. The President of the Congo in the past has stated the charges on which Mr. Lumumba was being hold. Her Majesty's Government regret the action taken by the States which wish to withdraw from the United Nations position in the Congo. Our view is well known.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation in the Congo is gravely aggravated by the presence of fairly large numbers of Belgian military personnel—

Nonsense.

—it is perfectly true—especially serving with Mr. Tshombe in Katanga? Can he take any initiative in the United Nations to secure their with drawal? Also, in view of the sharp change in the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his opening answer, will he consult with the Leader of the House about the possibility of an early debate on the Congo?

As to the last part of the supplementary question, I will see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the notice of the Leader of the House. The resolution of the United Nations about the introduction of troops or weapons into the Congo from outside is quite clear. On the other hand, where provincial authorities have been recruiting their own troops from outside, from other places in addition to Belgium, that position is quite different.

asked the Lord Privy seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made in the United Nations for a protest to be sent to President Kasavubu concerning the ill-treatment and imprisonment of Mr. Lumumba and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made designed to secure his immediate relase.

Our representative at the United Nations sponsored in the Security Council last month a resolution which sought to censure any violation of human rights or any measures contrary to the recognised rules of law and order in the Congo. This resolution was, regrettably, vetoed by the representative of the Soviet Union.

Is it not essential not only for the future of stability in the Congo but for the future of the United Nations and its prestige in the world that every effort should be made to ensure that the discussions about to take place in the Congo represent every shade of opinion there in order that they may lead to a successful conclusion?

Yes, but I have already dealt with that point.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he proposes to take in 1961 to end the cold war and to bring about peaceful co-existence between East and West.

Her Majesty's Government's views on East-West relations were well described in the statement issued by the three Western Heads of Government on 17th May last year, in Paris. They said that they remained unshaken in their conviction that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by the use or threat of force but by peaceful negotiation. They themselves remained ready to take part in such negotiations at any suitable time in the future. This will continue to guide our action in 1961.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Foreign Secretary of the growing view that every time he opens his mouth in public, he makes a cold war propaganda speech, that this is the worst possible way to secure coexistence, and that the only alternative to co-existence is non-existence?

I cannot possibly accept that view of my noble Friend's speeches, in which he has always placed very carefully the balance between defending the interests of this country and the Western world and negotiating with those who are prepared to negotiate.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if lie will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Ruler of Bahrain.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Bahrain and his talks with the Ruler.

I visited Bahrain on 15th, 16th and 19th January, spending altogether two and a half days there. In the course of this, I had two long conversations with the Ruler about various matters of mutual concern. The contents of these talks must, of course, remain confidential, but they were governed by the spirit of close friendship which has existed between Her Majesty's Government and Bahrain for over one hundred years, and which both Her Majesty's Government and the Ruler are anxious should continue.

In view of the information which the Lord Privy Seal gave the House just before the Recess—that he had asked for clemency for the prisoners now held on St. Helena under Her Majesty's custody—can the Lord Privy Seal, in spite of the fact that he says he circulated an answer covering some of these points in the OFFICIAL REPORT, tell the House whether he persuaded the Ruler to release these men, and. if not, will Her Majesty's Government not release these men who are now under British sovereignty without further ado?

The Lord Privy Seal said that he would answer Question No. 10 and a number of others at the end of Questions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of Resolution No. 182 of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular with regard to calling for an inquiry by the International Red Cross into conditions prevailing in the detention centres of the Soviet zone of Germany, and obtaining an alleviation in the conditions of political prisoners.

Her Majesty's Government have not taken any steps in pursuance of Resolution 182, which calls for no specific action on the part of member Governments, but which has, I understand, been communicated to the International Red Cross.

In view of the fact that there has been considerable controversy about the actual conditions of these prisoners, will the Government give support to the proposition that it seems desirable that the services of the Red Cross should be used in order to clear it up.

Her Majesty's Government certainly share the sentiments underlying this resolution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of Resolution No. 184 of the Council of Europe Consultative Assembly towards securing the closing down of refugee camps in Italy and resettling handicapped refugees, the providing of vocational training for Italian and foreign migrants, and assisting freedom of movement for workers in Europe.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently stated that as a result of the World Refugee Year fund-raising campaign, to which Her Majesty's Government as well as voluntary organisations made a substantial contribution, his camp clearance programme is now "totally and completely assured". This means that all refugees, including those in Italy, who qualify under his programme will have left the camps by the end of 1961.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, might I ask whether Her Majesty's Government, in addition to supporting these activities financially, will bear in mind the other two aspects of this problem mentioned in the recommendation and give whatever moral support they can to their implementation.

I will certainly bear that in mind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultation he has had with the Government of Nepal concerning the arrangements for the forthcoming State visit to Nepal.

In making arrangements for Her Majesty's visit, there have been the usual consultations between the two Governments.

In view of the state of political unrest in the State, can the Minister assure the House that he is quite satisfied that the security arrangements for Her Majesty's visit are entirely efficient? Secondly, in view of the great concern which has recently been expressed on political events in the State of Nepal, can the Minister of State assure the House that Her Majesty's visit does not imply any condonation by Her Majesty's Government of the recent actions of the Ruler of Nepal?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I can give that assurance. All indications are that security arrangements are extremely satisfactory. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, I think it is quite clear that this is a visit by Her Majesty to the King of Nepal and the people of Nepal. It has no reference whatever to the political conduct of affairs in that country.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his visit to the Persian Gulf Protectorates; and what steps he is taking to improve British relations with the people of these territories.

Between the 11th and 19th January, I visited seven States in the Persian Gulf area, that is to say the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, and the independent Sheikdoms under British protection. I discussed with the Rulers and Her Majesty's Representatives questions arising out of the relationships between Her Majesty's Government and these States.

Would the Minister agree that the winds of change are blowing in the Middle East as well as elsewhere in the world? What steps is he faking to encourage the development of representative institutions in the States and Sheikdoms for which we are directly responsible? Did he discuss this during his visit?

We are not directly responsible for the Sheikdoms. We have responsibility for their international relations in some cases, though not specifically in the case of Kuwait. Naturally, we wish to see that they go forward in ordered progress.

Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that in many cases Her Majesty's Government's treaty relationships with these States are dangerously out of date, having first been contrived as a protection against piracy of British ships in that area? Can he say whether any negotiations are now under way for revising those relationships?

I have examined this question and I find that these relationships do change from time to time, and in many cases they have changed recently in accordance with the situation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what were the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's agreement to the establishment by the United Arab Republic of a consulate at Freetown, Sierra Leone.

After consultation with the Government of Sierra Leone, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason for refusing the United Arab Republic's request.

In view of the impending independence of Sierra Leone and the relative insignificance of the United Arab Republic's inferests in that Colony, would it not have been better to defer a decision and leave it to the unfettered discretion of the Sierra Leone Government after independence?

It was because of forthcoming independence that Her Majesty's Government consulted very closely with people in Sierra Leone and, as they were quite agreeable to Phis appointment being made, Her Majesty's Government accepted it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent British-Soviet negotiations on cultural exchanges.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the cessation of jamming of overseas broadcasts from Britain.

A delegation led by my honourable Friend the Joint Under-Secretary visited Moscow recently to review progress in the cultural field and conclude a new Agreement to replace the 1959 Anglo-Soviet Cultural Agreement which expires at the end of March. The new Agreement provides for further exchanges in the scientific, technological, educational and cultural fields. It is similar in scope to, though slightly wider in scale than, the current Agreement but covers a two-year instead of a one-year period. The text is being printed and will be laid before the House as soon as possible, I hope this week.

While these agreements have been shown to be valuable, has not the assumption always been that they would lead to the establishment of normal free communications between Britain and the Soviet Union? Is the Minister aware that during the last year or two progress in this direction has been extremely disappointing? Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that merely to sign these agreements year after year is not enough and we expect progress towards free communications between the two countries?

I think I can agree with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has said.

Was it under these agreements that the Old Vic gave successful performances in Moscow, the members of the company being handed bouquets from the audience? Would it not be a great event if the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers were to receive bouquets from a Russian audience?

It would, of course, be very agreeable. The Old Vic, in fact, was sent there under the last agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further action he will take to secure the effective recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

The General Assembly of the United Nations is engaged upon the drafting of International Covenants on Human Rights which will embody the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the honourable Gentleman will be aware, the Universal Declaration was proclaimed as a common standard of achievement and has no legally binding force.

That sounds all very well, but is it not utterly deplorable that, in direct contravention of the letter and the spirit of this Declaration, Her Majesty's Government should kow-tow to racialism at the expense of British sailors who are good enough for the Royal Navy but not good enough for shore leave with their shipmates in South African ports? Will the Minister at least send a copy of the Declaration to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty?

As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the last part of his supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with me.