asked the Lord Privy Sea what action the delegation of the United Kingdom took in the Security Council on the recent request of forty member States for an urgent meeting of the Council to consider the serious situation prevailing in Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegates voted in the Security Council discussions on Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now assure the Secretary General of the United Nations that Her Majesty's Government will support the recent resolution of the Security Council on Angola, and the immediate implementation of the Council's mandate to the Sub-Committee of Inquiry; and if he will make appropriate representations to the Portuguese Government, in view of the unsettling effect in nearby British territories of recent disturbances in Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take steps at the United Nations to expedite an early report by the United Nations Sub-Committee on Angola.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate abstained on the recent resolution on Angola in the Security Council.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will take steps at the United Nations to expedite the report of the Sub-Committee on Angola.

I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 12th June.

Is it not the case that when this matter was discussed by the Security Council this resolution was carried unanimously with only the United Kingdom and France abstaining? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of haw shocked moral opinion is that Britain should have abstained in this way? Is he further aware that Britain's attitude means the loss of the confidence of a great part of Asia, of a great part of Africa, and of a great part of the liberal world?

I cannot accept the statement made in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The difference between our own colonial policy and that of Portugal has been explained on many occasions and is well recognised both in Africa and in Asia. The particular reasons why we abstained on this resolution have also been made plain before.

Is it not the case that the difference between Her Majesty's Government in Africa and the Portuguese Government is bound to be obscure unless the British Government join such of her allies as the United States Government in condemning the policy of the Portuguese Government in Angola, which is already beginning to resemble that for which Eichmann is being tried in Jerusalem, namely, for the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of Africans? In view of this, will not Her Majesty's Government take every possible opportunity of expressing in public their repugnance at the present policy of the Salazar Government and the hope, as expressed in the Security Council resolution, that this policy of repression will be ceased forthwith?

Her Majesty's Government deeply regret the loss of life in Angola, but it is no answer for the hon Gentleman to use such extravagant metaphors.

With regard to my Question, might I put this to my right hon. Friend, while dissociating myself from the most intemperate observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey): might it be not entirely necessary to await the report of this Sub-Committee of the United Nations? I suggest that we have evidence from men who are Englishmen and Christians who have been there recently and who, frankly, I believe, are telling the truth as to what is going on. Would it not be possible for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to take the initiative in this matter? Might my right hon. Friend not make an approach to the Portuguese Government with, say, the Foreign Minister of Nigeria and put it to them that if they behave like this they are making it impossible for the Western countries, who will be tarred with their brush?

Our representative at the United Nations expressed the hope that the Portuguese Government would cooperate with this Committee. It has been set up by the United Nations and we hope that the Portuguese Government will co-operate. Therefore, we hope to see a report as soon as possible. Of course, I recognise that many organisations and individuals have got information to give us about Angola and that they are making it fully public as well as sending it to us at the Foreign Office.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the act of abstention at the United Nations produced an impression in Africa and elsewhere that we are acquiescing in the policy of the Portuguese Government? The careful arguments that the right hon. Gentleman deploys at the Box do nothing to lessen that impression throughout the world. Is he aware that the report of the Baptist Misssionary Society confirms our worst fears about Angola, that what is happening there is nothing less than genocide?

The hon. Gentleman under-estimates the understanding of these matters which is shown by other delegations at the United Nations. This resolution contained a reference to the General Assembly resolution which called for immediate steps to make non-self-governing territories independent. That is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it was not the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite when they were in power. Therefore, we did not vote for this resolution.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have never been in power but that I did put down Question No. 37, which asked him to say whether he would try to expedite the report of the Sub-Committee? Would the right hon. Gentleman also remember that in seeking to answer together several Questions of this diversity on an important moral issue which is affecting the minds of people throughout the world, which involves the lives of British subjects and British missionaries, in respect of which the Observer reported yesterday that an additional 25,000 troops had been landed and that there may be a bloody holocaust in Angola if steps are not taken—is it not becoming a grave abuse of the process of this House for him to seek to answer Questions like this collectively, having disclaimed Ministerial responsibilty for many other questions which were sought to be put down? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the opinion the views and the rights of the House a little more on this extremely important and distressing question?

I am always endeavouring to meet the wishes of the House. Very often at Question Time the House is anxious that more Questions should be taken. It was therefore convenient to answer these together. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in saying that we hope that the Portuguese Government will cooperate with the Committee. We have expressed that hope publicly and we hope that the Committee will report as soon as possible, but it is for the Committee to decide how it will carry out its business and when it reports.

Would my right hon. Friend not say that the Portuguese delegate did outline the essential improvements which he and his Government propose to carry out in that territory?

Yes, that is so, and we hope that social and economic reforms will be valuable, but we also believe that political reforms should accompany them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Government's concurrence in the Portuguese policy of repression and extermination in Angola has been further emphasised by the sale of two frigates by Her Majesty's Government to the Portuguese authorities? Will he do something to see that even at this late hour the Government will prevent such a sale taking place?

I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman's accusation that British policy is in concurrence with that of Portugal in this matter.

Further to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Baptist missionaries in Angola have reported that 34,000 men, women and children have already been killed by Portuguese troops in Angola, and that it is planned by the Portuguese Government to undertake operations which may lead to the deaths of another 50,000 men, women and children? In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that he is expressing the views of this country by selling two frigates to the Government responsible for these atrocities?

I have, of course, seen the figures put forward, and which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, on which reliance can be put according to what one judges to be right. The question of the sale of frigates to Portugal as a N.A.T.O. ally is a different question from this.

On a point of order. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that either the Lord Privy Seal or the Joint Under-Secretary of State must have answered Question No. 23 with an earlier Question—

That is so

This does raise a dilemma for hon. Members.

No

With respect, if hon. Members are not here then they have to bear the consequences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a difficulty we have had before.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters covered by Question No. 23 which are not referred to in earlier Questions which were answered, and we really are put into difficulty if Ministers are going to answer groups of Questions together, some of which cover different and wider grounds than others, without notifying hon. Members.

I recognise the difficulty. I cannot add to what I said before. It will increase our difficulties if we do not get on.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has about the safety of British missionaries in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

Although some British and Canadian missionaries and their wives and families have already left Angola, I have had no reports to indicate that those who remain are in danger.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Baptist Missionary Society, those whom he suggests have left have been removed because they might possibly have been the eye-witnesses of an impending massacre which is being organised by the Portuguese Government and not because they are in any danger from the Africans? Would not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend do something at this point to try to save these helpless people in Northern Angola?

I have no evidence in support of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In regard to these missionaries, all the information we have is that they have, in fact, left for their own security, which would seem to be reasonable in view of some of the circumstances in the case.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several of these missionaries have been reported as saying that they left Angola against their will? Can he say whether he is in touch with the Portuguese Government on this situation? Is it not the case that these missionaries are at present the only British sources of information available even to the Government about what is happening in Northern Angola?

I have had evidence of only one case of a missionary who has been instructed to leave, and Her Majesty's Consul-General has taken up that case. I understand that the instruction has not yet been cancelled, but as far as I am aware he has not left Angola. I am not saying that there are not others, but this is the only one on which I have any information.

Does the hon. Gentleman's recently announced support of the principle of self-determination in West Berlin apply also to Angola?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is referring to in this case. Our own position in regard to Angola has been consistently stated time and again. Our policy in regard to colonial matters has been put forward again and again at the United Nations, and there is no question about that. Our views in regard to Portuguese policy in this case have been very clearly stated, and I have nothing to add at the moment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reports have been received by Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning Israel's violation of the neutral zones under the control of the Mixed Armistice Commission of the United Nations, especially with regard to the Israeli Govvernment's tunnelling operations designed to abstract the waters of the Jordan River.

I am not aware of any major violation of a demilitarised zone such as that indicated in the Question.

That may be, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that any abstraction of the Jordan waters by either party which is not according to international law would be most undesirable and dangerous at this time?

Yes, I realise that there are dangers inherent in this question of abstraction. I hope that anything of that sort which could be done by mutual agreement will be done, and I hope the United Nations could be used for this purpose.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State please tell his hon. Friend that the best way of dealing with these matters is by agreement between both parties to ensure that there is sufficient water for each, and that there is no violation whatsover in this matter by Israel?

I have already said that there is no violation in this matter. I do not think I can usefully add to that reply.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the threat of a violation of the Armistice Agreement, whether Her Majesty's Government will reaffirm their obligations under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, concerning the Israel Armistice lines, in the same way as was done by the United States of America in 1960; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware of a threatened violation of one of the Armistice Agreements.

The Minister has not really answered my Question. The question is, if there is a violation of the Armistice Agreement, what is our position under the Tripartite Declaration?

Order. That makes the question hypothetical unless there is a violation.

May I again ask the Minister to point out to his hon. Friend that the constant bellowing of Nasser and his friends in the matter of declaring war against a State which is part and parcel of the United Nations is something to which he should attend rather than raise questions of this nature in the House?

There are many difficulties in this area. This is a very difficult problem I do not think there is anything that I can usefully add beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend the then Foreign Secretary said on 7th March last year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action the Security Council has taken on the refusal of the Government of the Union of South Africa to permit the United Nations Committee to visit South-West Africa.

I presume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the letter of 10th May from the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs to the United Nations Secretary General. This has, I understand, been referred to the United Nations Committee for South-West Africa, and not the Security Council, for consideration.

Are not the Government of the Union of South Africa defying a request by the United Nations that this mission shall visit South-West Africa? In those circumstances, will the United Kingdom support the strongest action possible to see that the United Nations' decision on this matter is carried out?

I observe that in his letter of 10th May the South African Foreign Minister said that his Government were prepared to accept an impartial inquiry by an independent person mutually agreed upon by the President of the General Assembly and the South African Government into the validity of the allegation that international peace and security were threatened in South, West Africa.

asked the Lord Privy Seal in what circumstances and for what purpose it became necessary to make the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June, 1961, terminating Her Majesty's jurisdiction within the territories of the Ruler of Kuwait, soon after arrangements for the exercise of such jurisdiction had been made by the Kuwait Orders of 1959 and 1960.

The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, became necessary because the process of transferring jurisdiction to the Ruler has now been completed. The final Queen's Regulation transferring jurisdiction was made on 1st April, 1961.

Is the Lard Privy Seal aware that the Repealing Order has caused a great deal of concern in Kuwait, particularly since it does not seem to have been made at the request of the Ruler? Why was it necessary to terminate the existing jurisdiction so early as 1st July?

The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about the latter part of his supplementary question. This policy has been going on since 1959—there were the two Orders of 1959 and 1960—and, of course, it has been done in the closest co-operation with the Ruler as part of the general transference of jurisdiction.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any prior consultation took place with the judges, officials and lawyers practising in the British Courts referred to in the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June 1961, before the making of the Order; and why no provisions have been made in respect of pending or part-heard cases and for the preservation and protection of the rights of British and British-protected litigants.

The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, was the natural outcome of the Kuwait (Amendment) Order, 1960, prior to which the judges of the courts were consulted. The 1960 Order and subsequent Queen's Regulations providing for the transfer of jurisdiction made the intention of Her Majesty's Government clear to all persons, including lawyers practising in the British Courts The final Transfer Regulation of 1st April, 1961, provided that outstanding cases would continue to be heard by Her Majesty's courts. The Repealing Order Gives notice that the courts will close on 1st July. I am assured that the period of three months which has thus been allowed is sufficient for the cases outstanding on 1st April to be cleared in accordance with the normal procedure.

I accept that transfer of jurisdiction was inevitable, but can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why specific protection should not have been given to pending and part-heard cases and, in particular, to appeals now before the British courts? Is he aware that there is a substantial backlog of cases in the Kuwaiti courts and the result of the Order is likely to be interminable delay in pending cases since they will be heard under different jurisdiction operating under a different legal procedure and probably with a different substantive law, apart from the fact that all the documents in any case will have to be translated into Arabic? Does the Lord Privy Seal regard that as satisfactory?

We were advised that the period of three months between 1st April on which the transfer was made and the closing of the courts on 1st July would permit time for these cases to be disposed of. Since the Order was made, we have heard that it is possible that one case will not be concluded by 1st July. We have complete confidence that it can thereafter be dealt with by the Kuwaiti courts.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? While there is no possible objection in principle to the making of these orders, and handing over jurisdiction to the courts of Kuwait, is he aware that there is considerable protest at the speed with which it is being done, and the failure to protect those litigants who have commenced proceedings in the British courts and cannot get them completed in the time allowed? The time allowed by the Order is unreasonably short. Will he not look into it again?

As I said, we have had one case brought to our attention. However, if there are other cases which the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider, I will be glad to look into them.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) how many British nationals have been allowed to transfer out of Egypt the £5,000 per head allowed under the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement; how many he estimates still wish to take advantage of this Agreement; and what he is doing to speed up the repatriation of these funds;

I regret that the full information asked for in the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's first Question is not available. As he may have seen from a notice which appeared in the Press on 12th June, the British subjects concerned are now being asked to supply it. Meanwhile Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo are continuing to press the United Arab Republic Government to give full and early effect to their obligations under the Agreement.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been virtually no transfer from the U.A.R. because of the shortage of sterling? Have not the Government some responsibility in this matter, as they permitted the run-down of the U.A.R. sterling balances in this country? Will my right hon. Friend look again into this matter, which is causing great distress to a number of people?

Since we made the arrangements with the U.A.R. Government that they would permit the transfer of £E1,000 into sterling in each individual case, I believe that the scheme has been working reasonably smoothly.

If my right hon. Friend cannot give us an assurance that in the foreseeable future substantially the whole of these outstanding claims will he met, will he give some assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that those who are suffering as a result of this failure to repay what is owed do not suffer unduly?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance at the moment. We are using all our influence with the U.A.R. Government to have the maximum transfer of these funds at present in Egypt. We accepted this scheme, particularly to help those who have small claims, and we hope that the Egyptian Government will soon be able to transfer the full amount.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following Mr. Khrushchev's proposal that the United Nations Headquarters should be moved to Vienna or Moscow, he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.

I am not aware that any formal proposal to move the United Nations Headquarters has yet been made to the Organisation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) when he received the invitation of the Danish Government, transmitted to him through the Danish Ambassador in London, to co-operate with the Danish Government in the appointment of a three-man commission to investigate and report on the recent incident when an armed Danish frigate fired on and damaged the unarmed Scottish vessel "Red Crusader"; and what reply he has sent;

I have received from my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty copies of the relevant reports to the Admiralty about this incident. Her Majesty's Government have replied to the Danish proposal for the appointment of a commission of inquiry, which was received on 10th June and of which I informed the House on 12th June, that they are agreeable in principle to the appointment of such a commission and are urgently considering the details of the Danish proposals. Her Majesty's Government hope that as a result of the work of the Commission any misunderstandings about the matter between the two Governments will be removed. I naturally hope that there will be no repetition of this unfortunate incident.

Would the Lord Privy Seal say where and when this Commission will sit, what evidence will be called before it, when it is likely to arrive at a decision? Does he realise that it is a most unfortunate thing that differences of this kind should arise between the two nations, Denmark and Britain, hitherto friendly? What steps is he taking to preclude differences of this kind in the future?

We greatly regret differences of opinion between the two countries. These matters are under discussion between ourselves and the Danish Government at the moment.

Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Commission to look at the rather wider issues involved? There has been a case recently where there has been trouble in the North Sea. Could not the Commission have a look at that at the same time to see if we can try to restore the good relations which have existed between the fishing industries of this country and Denmark?

The scope of this inquiry is still under discussion, but I think that it must be confined to the events connected with this incident.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet received the Eleventh Interim Report from the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam; and when it will be published.

This report has not yet been received; I expect it to be published in the usual way once it has been circulated to all the Governments concerned.

Is it not unlikely that this report will be able to deal with the recent happenings which included the unofficial decision of the American Government to reinforce their military aid advisory group in South Vietnam and to send American officers to lead the South Vietnamese forces in guerrilla activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ask the International Commission to make a special investigation and to report on this flagrant violation of the Geneva Agreements?

I think that my right hon. Friend did deal with that aspect upon a previous Question by the hon. Member. If anyone violates the Geneva Agreements—and I hope, incidentally, that the hon. Member is not forgetting the Communist violence now tormenting that unhappy country—then it will be the function of the I.C.C. to report the facts and of the Co-Chairmen to consider what action should be taken; but we cannot be asked to speak hypothetically on the functions of other Governments.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action he proposes to take following the success of the habeas corpus application made by the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned since December, 1956, in St. Helena.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) in view of the release of the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena following the habeas corpus application, if he will now make a statement regarding the arrangement Her Majesty's Government are making for the transport of the three men to a place of their own choosing; whether he is willing to grant them political asylum in the United Kingdom; and what compensation he is proposing to pay them for four years' unlawful detention;

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make with regard to the successful application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Chief Justice of St. Helena made on behalf of three Bahraini prisoners.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what compensation Her Majesty's Government is proposing to pay to the three Bahraini political prisoners who have now been released following habeas corpus petition after four years' unlawful detention.

The court in St. Helena granted the applications of Abdul Aziz Shemlan, Abdur Rahman Al-Bakr and Abd Ali Alaiwat for writs of habeas corpus on 13th June. Her Majesty's Government will meet the reasonable costs of travel by the three men to any destination which they may choose, up to a distance equivalent to that from St. Helena to Bahrain, and are assisting the men to leave St. Helena on 1st July. I am not aware that any request for political asylum has been received from these men, whose status is that of British protected persons.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perfect poetic justice that the Government were caught out on a technical hitch, because this technical hitch was characteristic of the indecent haste with which the whole operation was carried out in Bahrain, and will the Government now prop up the wounded pride of the Foreign Secretary and make full redress to these men who have been so wrongfully dealt with?

If the hon. Gentleman is placing so much substance on the technical hitch then, presumably, he is arguing that the Government in substance were correct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a satisfactory end to four years of the most unfortunate and unsatisfactory cat-and mouse game which he and his predecessors conducted in relation to these most unfortunate men? May I ask him when he intends to announce when the compensation to these men will be paid and what the amount will be, and whether he is going to make an apology in regard to the statement he made on 8th February to the effect that it was clear that all three prisoners had requested no further legal proceedings should he taken in their name, and will withdraw the imputation against the solicitor involved in this case who has behaved most correctly throughout it?

I have nothing to withdraw, as the hon. Member will see if he consults the record. I gave to the House at the time the details of the message which we had received from Al Bakr, who asked that he should be returned to Bahrain and that no further legal action should be taken, and that request has been undenied by Al Bakr throughout this time. In view of the ambiguity we ourselves arranged for the other two men to be interviewed by the Governor in the presence of a friend, as I stated at the time, whereupon they said their wishes were, if they could not be freed, they should be re turned to Bahrain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply today is quite satisfactory, but will he bear this in mind as well, that when I visited Bahrain and spoke to them they did not seem to be very confident about the standing of the plot? When are those who were really involved in the plot to be brought to trial?

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the granting of this legal writ for the release of these prisoners places a clear liability on the Government to make restitution to these men? Who can gauge the loss and damage they have suffered over these four years, and what those four years have meant to them and their families? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be a little more warm-blooded than he is in standing at that Box and being so coldly dispassionate about a matter which arouses very deep feelings in this House?

I fully recognise the implications of this, but I have said I am not in a position to make a statement today.

Surely the Lord Privy Seal must realise that what he has said about the statement on 8th February will not do. Is he aware that this is a matter which I raised on the Adjournment before Christmas, when the right hon. Gentleman promised a statement? In that statement he informed us that the dearest wish of these three men was to go back to Bahrain where they had the utmost confidence in the treatment that they would receive at the hands of the Ruler and that their only desire was to withdraw these proceedings. We then find that a most remarkable change has happened in their minds. Will not the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more?

The hon. and learned Member, with his customary skill, has exaggerated. If he is prepared to quote my words the House will find that they are somewhat different. It is perfectly true that at a later stage two of the men changed their minds and then decided again that they would like to bring legal proceedings. That never applied to the third man until after the decision by the first.

In view of the fact that the Government's actions have been proved to be juridically illegal as well as politically unwise, as the majority of the House has believed for a long time, and in view of the fact that the Government have proved to be out of touch with some of the major elements of fact in the case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an assurance that there is no possibility of such a cavalier attitude being adopted towards justice in other issues in the Gulf at present?

The Government have not been out of touch with matters of fact about this. These are matters of the utmost legal complexity, and this is the second time that the case has been before the courts. As to the wisdom of this, it is true that as a result of this action quiet was restored to the Gulf after a period of intense tension after the Suez incident. When, after a period of five years, we reviewed this situation we felt that it was no longer right that these men should be detained in the custody of Her Majesty's Government, and the proposal was made to the Ruler that either they should be offered clemency or they should be returned to him for imprisonment in Bahrain.

May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On 8th February, the Minister concerned in this case made a misleading and, indeed, in some respects false statement to the House.

Order. If the hon. Member wants to make assertions of that kind he must take appropriate steps. I do not think that we can debate the question of a statement made and whether it should be unmade now at Question Time.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on what steps the House can take to ensure that the Minister makes an apology to the people involved in this case and who have been gravely implicated by his statement?

It is not for me to give guidance in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member can find some place where he might obtain assistance. If not, if he likes to see me I will do what I can to help him.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper giving details of the help given by Spanish refugees in France during the last war in smuggling British airmen out of France.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that whilst Franco was sending soldiers to help Hitler, democratic Spanish refugees were risking their lives in Gestapo-ridden France, particularly at Perpignan, to help Britain? Is not the Foreign Secretary's recent action a gross betrayal of people who no longer have anything to offer us, in order to curry favour with a Fascist dictator?

Whilst accepting that help was given in certain circumstances, the reason why my original answer was "No" was that I am advised that insufficient records exist for that purpose. As for the hon. Member's supplementary question, I do not think that extravagant statements like that are helpful. In the interests of Europe and the world, it is better that we should seek to maintain relations with countries whether they be of extreme Right-wing character or whether they be Communist.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will make an additional payment into the United Nations fund for the Congo, and call on other nations to do likewise, In order to give adequate support to the recent financial agreement between the United Nations and the Central Government of the Congo.

Her Majesty's Government are glad to learn that a financial agreement has been concluded between the United Nations and the Congolese Government. However, the United Nations authorities have as yet made no appeal for additional payments to the United Nations Fund for the Congo. Her Majesty's Government have already paid 3 million dollars to the Fund and have promised another 2 million dollars providing other members of the United Nations also contribute their share.

Would the Minister agree, on the one hand, that the agreement is very welcome because it involves closer working relationships between the central Government and the United Nations advisers and on the other hand it has involved substantial payment from a United Nations fund to the central Congo Government which have left that fund at a very low level? Would it not be a pity if future activities were hamstrung by lack of funds? Would the Minister keep an eye, in consultation with other Governments, on the question whether further payments can be made if they are considered necessary?

I entirely agree, and I am glad to think that things have developed in this way. It augurs more hope for the country than we dared to expect a few months ago. As to further funds being made available, I take notice of the point and I will certainly keep a close watch on it.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any funds have been allocated by the Communist bloc countries for this purpose?

I am afraid that I have to give a very unfavourable answer. I regret that they have not been so forthcoming as we would wish in this respect.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the recent consultation in Washington between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the United States Secretary of State, and on the basic agreements achieved.

As I told the House on 5th June, my noble Friend felt that it would be useful, while he was in the United States for two speaking engagements, to have talks with the United States Government about the problems which are likely to face our two countries later in the year.

Is that all the information the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the House? In view of the Press conference held by the Foreign Secertary, in which he dealt with quite a number of matters, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information? If he is not prepared to add to his Answer, may I ask whether we can take it that Her Majesty's Government are considering the proposal put forward by Senator Mansfield and others that the whole of Berlin should be made a free city under the protection of the United Nations and with free access maintained for all who wish to visit Berlin?

At the Press conference my noble Friend answered questions about British policy, but naturally he did not explain the contents of the talks between himself and members of the American Administration, which I understand were confidential. As for Senator Mansfield's speech, both my noble Friend and the American Secretary of State noted what he said.

Has any progress been made about the admission of China to a seat in the United Nations?

I cannot give details of the conversation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the progress at the Geneva conference on nuclear tests.

Since the publication of the Soviet aide-memoire, which had been given to President Kennedy in Vienna, discussions have continued on the points covered in it. There has, I regret to say, been no progress. The United States Government have now published its reply to the Soviet aide-memoire. Her Majesty's Government agree with the views expressed by the United States Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a situation now exists in which Great Britain can give a moral lead to the rest of the world and particularly to the nuclear Powers? Is he aware that it is in the interests of mankind that Britain should advocate the complete cessation of nuclear tests?

Britain has been working very hard to try to achieve success in these negotiations and we are extremely disappointed that recent months have not shown any response from the Soviet side. We will continue gladly to do anything we can if there is any prospect of a successful outcome of these negotiations, but I must admit that present prospects are not by any means good.

Can by hon. Friend say whether it is true that the Americans are contemplating the resumption of nuclear tests?

I have nothing to indicate definitely. There have been certain comments in the Press about this, but I understand that any such suggestions have been related to underground tests which of course would have nothing whatever to do with the pollution of the atmosphere.

Whilst expressing the strong hope that the Americans will not resume testing, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can say whether Mr. Khrushchev intends to carry out his threats to hold atomic tests, which he would not say would be underground or otherwise, if there is no agreement in Geneva?

I have no information about that obviously, but that does exemplify the dangers if we cannot get a solution. That is why we were extremely disappointed that the last few weeks have been so negative.

Is there any intention of adjourning the conference, or are we to take it that the discussions will continue indefinitely?

The discussions are still continuing, and as long as we see hope of success we will certainly not wish to terminate them.