Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition of the Covent Garden Tenants' Association which has been signed by the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The Prayer to the Petition reads:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray your Honourable House that the Bill be not amended so as to restrict the powers of the Covent Garden Market Authority in carrying out the functions and duties imposed on them by the Bill and that they may be heard by themselves their Counsel or Agents before the Committee of your Honourable House to whom the Bill has been referred against any alteration of the Bill which may be detrimental to the property rights and interests of those whom they represent.

And your Petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray, etc.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will grant free legal aid to the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena, in view of the important legal aspects of the case, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in removing the men to an inaccessible island and the expense of conducting such legal action as necessary in St. Helena.

No. Sir.

Will the Minister now confirm that the statement he made to the House a fortnight ago was rather misleading, as one of the prisoners concerned has now made clear that he wishes to take further legal proceedings to ensure his release from illegal detention in St. Helena for the past four years? Further, as these men are detained on a remote, rather inaccessible island, which involves the men's legal advisers in considerable expense in conducting the case, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for facilities to be made available so that the case may be conducted?

The statement I made to the House was not in any way misleading. It stated quite clearly the position at that time. The Government do not accept that the detention is illegal and, as I have already said, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

But, surely, the Minister will not deprive these unfortunate men of their opportunity to present their legal case merely because they have not got the financial means to prosecute it. Will not he ensure that they have facilities for legal aid?

The manner in which their case is presented is a matter for the men and their legal advisers to decide.

Will the Lord Privy Seal please reply to the first part of my Question, and confirm that one of these political prisoners now wishes legal proceedings to be pursued?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the Answer to a later Question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a further statement about the future of the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned in St. Helena.

Correspondence is in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the prisoners' solicitors. I have no further statement to make at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, first, answer the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) and say whether or not one of the prisoners has indicated that he desires to proceed with habeas corpus proceedings? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that these men have been put under very strong psychological pressures and that the Government have presented them with three courses only: one, proceeding with a second go at habeas corpus proceedings at enormous expense; two, remaining for another ten years in St. Helena: three, going back to Bahrain to serve their sentence? Is it not clear in the circumstances that none of those choices is one which ought to be offered to men who are serving unjust sentences?

I told the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) that the question of proceedings is a matter between the prisoners and their solicitors. The Government have placed no psychological pressure of any kind on these prisoners in St. Helena.

The Minister cannot expect to get away with this as easily as that. A fortnight ago he made a statement to the House indicating that the men were choosing to go back to Bahrain, and he now knows that that is not the case. Will he confirm that these men were removed illegally and, indeed, they were kidnapped by those responsible to his Department four years ago? In view of that, would it not now be honourable for the men to be released and allowed to choose for themselves where they should go?

I have already said that the Government do not accept that these prisoners were removed illegally or that any such expression as "kidnapped" is applicable.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in the United Nations to support written protests made by the Secretary-General to the Belgian Government about the intervention of Belgian nations in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are proposed by Her Majesty's Government, through the United Nations, to remove Belgian military personnel from the Congo, to stop the delivery of aircraft to the irregular forces in Katanga Province, and thus to lessen the danger of the development of full-scale civil war.

It is important to distinguish between military and civilian personnel. Many Belgian civilian technicians have throughout remained at their posts in the Congo, thus providing valuable assistance in keeping the economy and public services of the country functioning.

As to military and para-military personnel, we have supported a resolution in the Security Council urging the withdrawal of such people, whether Belgians or other foreigners.

Is it not a fact that many weeks ago Mr. Hammarskjoeld presented formal written protests to the Belgians against their help to Mr. Tshombe, and the violation of the Trust Territory of Ruanda Urundi, and would it not have helped to restrain both the Belgians and Mr. Tshombe if Her Majesty's Government had summoned a meeting of the Security Council to give full support to Mr. Hammarskjoeld?

Throughout the whole of the difficulties in the Congo we have given the fullest possible support to the Secretary-General.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that Mr. Dayal himself has in his possession the names of hundreds of Belgian Army officers and other ranks who are serving in Katanga, and whose names are still on the Belgian Army List? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take more effective action? Can he also answer the second part of Question No. 27—about the delivery of jet aircraft the other day?

The action of the Secretary-General with the Belgian Government has followed these resolutions, and it is up to the Secretary-General to inspire the form of activities in the United Nations that he wants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Weak."] It is not weak. We are working through the United Nations, and supporting it. The question of the jet aircraft is a matter between the two Governments involved. We are not involved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because I understand that the aircraft that has been delivered was being carried by an American aircraft and the one being delivered was French. Therefore, neither of these things directly concerns us as a Government.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that but for the presence of hundreds of Belgians who are serving in many capacities in the health and educational spheres the chaos and suffering in the Congo would have been much worse?

In my Answer I have emphasised the value of the services performed by Belgian technicians and advisers.

The Minister says that we have given full support to Mr. Hammarskjoeld. He has admitted that we did not call a meeting of the Security Council to support these Notes. Did we make any representation in Brussels, OT take other action of that kind?

We have used our influence wherever possible. The calling of the Security Council is not always a matter for us. Naturally, we are in the closest consultation with the Secretary-General over these matters, and we very often take his advice.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether pay and other expenditure incurred by military units engaged in the Congo under the direction of the United Nations is met by funds provided by the United Nations.

The basic pay and such expenditure as would normally be incurred were they serving in their own countries is met in respect of units engaged in the Congo by the Governments concerned. The additional costs are chargeable to United Nations funds.

Do I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the military costs, pay and ancillary services, are met by the countries concerned? Is that the reason why some of the countries have withdrawn their troops from United Nations' direction in the Congo? Is it not desirable that the purely military cost should be borne by the United Nations?

That is not the reason which any of the countries which have withdrawn their contributions have given for withdrawal, but I am quite prepared to consider the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes and look into it.

Will he pass it on to Mr. Hammarskjoeld?

I will see that our delegate at the United Nations is informed of it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been made by Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning the pacification of the Congo, with particular reference to bringing the murderers of Patrice Lumumba to justice, the disarming of military units other than the United Nations forces, the withdrawal of the Belgians, and the reconvening of the Congolese Parliament.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the situation in the Congo in so far as it constitutes a danger to world peace.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a comprehensive statement as to the proposals in regard to the Congo which Her Majesty's Government propose to lay before the United Nations Organisation at its forthcoming meeting.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Congo situation and the recent meetings of the Security Council on this matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action has been taken by the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations Security Council with respect to the situation in the Congo.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Congo, and on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission and to the proposals submitted to the United Nations by the President of Ghana and published on 18th February.

The meeting of the Security Council ended on 20th February with the adoption of a resolution designed to reinvigorate the United Nations operation and prevent further outside intervention. It urges the United Nations to take the necessary measures to prevent civil war, including the use of force, in the last resort; it seeks to secure the withdrawal of foreign military personnel and urges that the Congolese forces should be reorganised; it urges the convening of the Congolese Parliament and proposes an impartial investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Lumumba's death.

In supporting this resolution our representative made clear that we did not consider the resolution gave the United Nations power to impose forcibly any solution, political or otherwise, upon the Congolese; that we interpreted the reference in the resolution to the

"use of force, if necessary, in the last resort"

as meaning that force would only be used to prevent a clash between hostile Congolese troops; and that we interpreted the first paragraph as meaning that it was for the Secretary-General to implement the resolution.

There are some additional encouraging signs that progress may now be possible. The preliminary report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission treats the provisional Government in Leopoldville as a basis for a more representative Government, and urges that a conference of political leaders should be held to revise the Constitution. I understand that the Congolese still intend to hold their Round Table Conference in Elisabeth-vine on 1st March for this purpose. Furthermore, President Kasavubu assured Mr. Hammarskjöld on 16th February of his confidence and support and of the continued desire of the Congolese authorities to co-operate with the United Nations.

Now that the Government, presumably, accept some measure of responsibility for helping to implement the resolution, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct Her Majesty's representatives in Brussels to request the Belgian Government now to withdraw their military personnel from Katanga and to order their puppets in Katanga to comply with this United Nations resolution?

The resolution has to be implemented, as has been stated, by the Secretary-General. We shall give him every support we can in doing that. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Belgian Government can order the authorities in the Province of Katanga to do what they wish.

Is not the principal problem in implementing any physical action in the Congo one of practicality? What is the Government's view about necessary steps to secure proper military leadership and co-ordination by United Nations forces in the Congo?

I agree that that is an important point. Once such a resolution has been passed—we agree with the substance of the resolution and have supported it thoroughly—the question of the extent to which it can be carried out in dealing, for example, with volunteers into the Congo is very difficult indeed. I think that the military organisation in the Congo itself must be a matter between the Secretary-General and the Command of the United Nations forces in the Congo. It cannot be possible for every country to give its own views or say how this should be done with a force of that kind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether representatives of the Security Council are to be present at the proposed round-table conference? Would it not be a good thing if they were and if that conference were held under the aegis of the United Nations?

The proposal was made that the members of the Security Council should go to meet in Leopoldville or elsewhere in the Congo. I understand that that is under discussion but that no decision has been reached.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to answer Question No. 26. Would he please do so? Would he say what is the policy of the Government on the Conciliation Commission's Report and what is the Government's view on Dr. Nkrumah's proposals? He has not answered those questions at all. Before agreeing to recognise the Ileo administration, will the Government consult very carefully the Commonwealth Governments most closely concerned?

In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have throughout kept in the closest consultation with all the members of the Commonwealth. In answer to his supplementary question concerning the Conciliation Commission's Report and President Nkrumah's proposals, that was dealt with in the Answer, because we have supported the comprehensive resolution at the Security Council, the terms of which I have read out. Those terms cover part of the recommendations of the Conciliation Commission—for example, the support of the provisional Government and working by co-operation—and they also provide the answer to some of the proposals of President Nkrumah.

First, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Secretary-General has made any assessment about the number of troops which will be necessary to carry out these aims? Secondly, does this new resolution mean that the United Nations forces in the Congo will now be able to provide sanctuary to some of those who are in fear of their lives?

I have not yet heard of any fresh assessment by the Secretary-General of the additional forces which he will require. We understand that the United Nations are endeavouring to provide sanctuary in so far as the number of forces which they have will allow. In Stanleyville, for example, there is some sanctuary provided by United Nations forces.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reports that new contingents of troops are being promised by India, Pakistan and Iraq?

I have no definite information on that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper on the Government's actions in relation to the Congo, showing in particular how the United Kingdom representative voted on each resolution submitted to the Security Council, and what action was proposed by the United Kingdom representative on the reports submitted to the Security Council by United Nations representatives in the Congo.

The United Nations documents containing the speeches of the United Kingdom representative and showing how he voted on Security Council resolutions are regularly made available in the Library. I do not see any need for the publication of a White Paper at present.

Would not a full review of the record show that the Government's behaviour in the whole Congo question has been very deplorable, beginning with their abstention on the first resolution passed by the Security Council on this subject? Have not their actions, including, for example, their support of the unconstitutional overthrow of the Lumumba Government, all through connived at the behaviour of the Belgian colonialists in the Congo and their stooges in Katanga?

No, Sir. I cannot accept any of the strictures of the hon. Gentleman. The Government have supported the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the United Nations throughout all these difficulties. One will not find a solution to this problem in the Congo, which is of such seriousness, merely by repeating the parrot cries of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the recent incident in Angola involving United Kingdom citizens, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for East Ham, North; and what representations on the matter have been made to the Portuguese authorities.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 15th February to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).

No representations have been made to the Portuguese authorities.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why no representations are being made? Is not this a very serious incident, in which a newsreel camera was confiscated, and is it not an example of the deplorable censorship policy of the Portuguese in Angola? Should not the Government really welcome this incident in order to make representations about their general view of the damage being done by Portuguese policy to the whole case of the West in relation to Africa?

This is a serious incident and I understand that it is still under investigation. The Portuguese personnel concerned will be dealt with by a military tribunal. The camera was the property of a South African national, so the question of representations would fall in that quarter.

Mr. Tilney—Question 4.

Arising from that reply—

Order.

When I called Mr. Tilney, I did not see the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am tempted to call him. Mr. Foot.

Are we to understand that no further report has been received from Her Majesty's representative, either in Lisbon or Angola, since 15th February?

No, Sir. We have received a further report, because the consul has been to see one of those gentlemen in hospital and has reported on his progress. But the matter itself is still under investigation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with Her Majesty's Government's proposal to set up an international committtee of experts to examine disarmament control.

Discussions on disarmament are due to be resumed at the United Nations General Assembly which will reconvene on 7th March.

Would the Lord Privy Seal be kind enough to answer the Question on the Order Paper? What has happened about the Government's proposal for this committee of experts? Is he aware that the American Administration are taking the matter seriously, and should not a country in Britain's position give a real lead in studying the problems of disarmament?

It was our own original proposal that this committee of experts should be set up, but the point of my Answer is that when the Assembly adjourned no decision had been reached on the resolution. We are immensely keen that this should be put into action, but must await the next meeting of the Assembly before further action can be taken on the resolution.

When the Assembly comes together again, will the Minister consider adding to our proposal the further proposal that the experts should study, not only control and inspection, but disarmament as well? Will he also consider whether Her Majesty's Government cannot prepare a detailed disarmament plan to lay before the United Nations negotiating organ when it is set up?

I will, of course, consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it widens the whole field. The object of the Prime Minister's proposal was to focus on the 'problem of control, which seemed the main difference between the Western and the Soviet positions.

rose—

We really must get on. We are already getting behind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the latest Western proposals for submission to the Ten-Power Disarmament Committee; and if he will now state the date of its next meeting.

The Ten-Power Disarmament Committee has not met since 27th June last year when its Communist members walked out. The Soviet Union have stated that they will not take part in the work of the Committee and therefore no date for a meeting of this body can be arranged.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the Question?

There are no latest proposals for submission to the Ten-Power Disarmament Committee, because the Disarmament Committee is not meeting. The proposals rest on those which were placed on the day on which the Soviet Powers walked out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at my Question? I asked what were the latest proposals for submission to the Committee. I am asking whether we are to assume that the proposals of 27th June last year which were put forward by the United States Government with the consent of Her Majesty's Government are the final disarmament offer to be put forward by the West. May we take it that consultations are taking place between Her Majesty's Government, the French Government and the United States Government with a view to putting forward fresh proposals when the Committee again meets?

Since the ending of the disarmament conference in the summer as the result of this walk-out there were the further developments and disarmament resolutions at the United Nations Assembly in the autumn. We are in the closest consultation with our allies about the disarmament position and we are hopeful that we shall be able to make more progress when the Assembly resumes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the establishment in London of an office of the Arab League.

Her Majesty's chargéd' Affairs in Cairo recently informed the Secretary-General of the Arab League that Her Majesty's Government could agree to his proposal to open an Arab League office in London.

Does the Lord Privy Seal appreciate that in all quarters of the House there will be a welcome for any step that will improve relations, so abruptly severed, between this country and the Arabs at the time of Suez, and that, therefore, we welcome the fact that the Arab League office is coming here? But has it been made clear to the Arab League that this office is not welcome here if it is to be used to spy on British firms trading with Israel, or organising a boycott against trading with Israel, or publishing anti-semitic propaganda here? Will the head of this office have diplomatic status?

We want this office to conduct itself in the normal and proper manner. The head of the office will not have diplomatic status.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what negotiations Her Majesty's Government have had with other members of the European Free Trade Association regarding the possibility of individual countries in that group, including the United Kingdom, making separate trade agreements with countries forming the European Economic Community.

None, Sir.

In view of the pressure which is being put on Her Majesty's Government from various quarters to accede to the Rome Treaty, may we take it that any negotiations with the E.E.C. will be conducted by E.F.T.A. and not individually by Her Majesty's Government?

We have not yet reached the stage of embarking on negotiations. In the exploratory discussions which we have been having with German and Italian officials, and which we are to embark on next week with French officials, it has been made clear that we can speak only for ourselves and that, in considering any arrangement with the Six, the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners must, of course, be safeguarded.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the name of the representative appointed by Her Majesty's Government to the Mixed Experts Committee responsible for the disposal of Krupp's holdings.

The British member of the Committee has been Sir Edward Jackson, a distinguished judge and former colonial servant.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct this distinguished judge to work along the lines suggested by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin who, when Foreign Secretary, said, with reference to this matter, that he had no desire to see these gentlemen or their like return to a position which they had abused with such tragic results, and that the intention was to socialise the industries? Why cannot the Government carry out that policy?

The Mixed Committee of Experts is an independent Committee, and therefore Her Majesty's Government cannot give any instructions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what are now the obstacles to the conclusion of an international agreement to ban nuclear tests.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said on 15th February, there are a number of points of disagreement, but the hold-up mainly relates to the research programme, the length of the moratorium, and the quota of inspections.

In view of the considerable progress which has been made towards reaching agreement and the relative success of the Geneva Conference in maintaining a moratorium, albeit temporary, among the participants, will the Lord Privy Seal now make a supreme effort to clinch these matters by an agreement in principle because of the opportunities which it would give for further progress on disarmament?

Yes, Sir.

Inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they do not intend to resume nuclear tests, would it not be advantageous if they made it clear that they are prepared to sign a ban on all tests, large and small, pending the working out of a better system of control and inspection?

One would have to examine that carefully. We must adhere to the original terms by which we suspended tests when we started the conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose some limited form of unilateral disarmament at the nuclear test talks.

No, Sir.

If Britain announced that she was not merely suspending test explosions as at present, but ending them permanently, would not this help to disperse the mutual suspicion, which at the moment is so deep that only deeds, and not words, will remove it? After all, was it not by such limited unilateral action that the present system was started and has since been maintained?

I know that the hon. Member is sincere in his suggestion, but I do not think that that is the best means of reaching the agreement which he wants. We have made considerable progress in the talks and we are hopeful that when they are resumed we shall be able to reach final agreement.

Surely, after two and a half years with failure to agree, the present methods have failed?

No, Sir; I cannot accept that the present methods have failed. When we resume the conference at the end of March, after consultation with the American Government, I hope that we shall be able to make real progress.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will propose at an early meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations that a committee should be set up to consider the possibilities of preparing a United Nations' plan for an area of disengagement in Europe.

No, Sir.

Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that the centre of Europe is an area within which there is the greatest danger of a war beginning which could end in a nuclear war? Therefore, is not this a specific problem which needs specific attention? Will not the Government make such a proposal as a preliminary contribution paving the way for a period when agreement on such a proposal might be reached?

The Government cannot accept any such proposal for a study of disengagement, because they believe that disengagement itself actually increases the danger through the creation of a vacuum in an important area like Europe. It is quite different from disarmament or any form of controlled armaments.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give details of Her Majesty's Government's new policy towards the seating of the Peking Government in the United Nations.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 8th February and to what was said in another place on that day.

Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little less baleful and bashful? Is he not aware that for once he has the support of the Marquis of Salisbury? Could he tell us whether the Government are going to vote for or against the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the matter arises.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the situation will not be improved by repeating his parrot cries?

That is a quite different matter. The position has been, as we have stated in the House since the debate on the Address in this Session, that the realities of political life meant that the Peking Administration should have a seat in the United Nations, but the debate has hitherto been on a moratorium and whether this division would split the United Nations. That still remains the position until we can see the situation when the matter comes up again at the Assembly in the autumn.

In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reply was given by the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation to the invitation to send agents to investigate the charges of alleged intervention and aid from North Vietnam made by the present rulers of Laos; and what was the policy of the United Kingdom representative in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation on that occasion.

A reply, which has not been published, was sent to the Laotian Government on 16th February by the Secretary-General of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, on behalf of the Council Representatives. It is now under consideration by the Laotian Government.

Is it not a fact that the Minister of Education of the Laotian Government has said that the allegations of North Vietnam intervention were mere propaganda to secure foreign assistance? Is it not further a fact that S.E.A.T.O. is a totally one-sided organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that matters of this sort will be dealt with through the United Nations and not through S.E.A.T.O.?

S.E.A.T.O. is a regional organisation which is permissible under the United Nations Organisation. Apparently, the views of the Minister of Education at the Press conference, like a good many other Press conferences, are in dispute. The Government make their own assessment of the degree of intervention in Laos.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that there has been increasing Communist guerrilla activity in Vietnam, greater than in Inns itself?

I think that that is probably true, yes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government continue to recognise that, as they stated in reply to Questions from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 4th February, 1955, and from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, on 15th February, 1956, the Chinese coastal islands of Matsu and Quemoy form part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Yes, Sir.

In view of that reply and in view of the fact that the Defence White Paper now mentions China as a potential enemy, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Government allow themselves to be committed to war by the United States or anybody else in order to keep Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese coastal islands?

If the hon. Member likes to put that question upon the Paper, I will give him a considered reply.