asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now state the course and result of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government which were resumed on 28th November, 1961, for the purpose of agreeing on a treaty banning nuclear weapon tests under effective international control; upon what points agreement has been reached; what points remain outstanding; and what steps are now being taken or planned to resolve the differences still outstanding.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in studying the Soviet plan for the banning of nuclear tests; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement concerning the proposals made recently by Her Majesty's Government's representative to the Nuclear Tests Conference in Geneva.

It has proved impossible to make any headway with these resumed negotiations in view of the Soviet repudiation of those treaty articles already agreed and their refusal to discuss any alternative to their proposals tabled on 28th November. These, as has been made clear at the Conference, are unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, since they make no provision for any form of international verification and control.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he realises that the most powerful nations on earth, including the United States, Russia and Great Britain, all possessing nuclear power, have expressed themselves unequivocally in favour of the doctrine of peaceful co-existence? Can the hon. Gentleman state in detail why that doctrine cannot be translated into agreement by the great nations of the world?

I wish I could state it in detail here. We shall, of course, be starting, or we hope to be starting, disarmament discussions over the whole front in March, and I hope very much that we shall make progress then. This is undoubtedly a disappointment.

While agreeing with the Anglo-American statement that the nuclear test ban should be given priority in the March talks, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will urge the American Government to withhold tests until that date, otherwise the conference will be doomed? If he made such a proposal, would it not then be possible to avoid the serious decision which apparently he has just announced?

We have to bear in mind that the tests were resumed not by the United States but by the Russians. The Russians unilaterally abrogated the suspension, which had been going on and by which we and the Americans had loyally abided, with this massive series of tests. In the light of that, I cannot add anything to what has been said previously on the subject.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the deadlock in the Nuclear Tests Conference is not simply transferred to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee? Will he also ensure that disarmament is discussed and not postponed until after the tests question has been settled?

It is our intention that the tests discussions shall go on at once. We suggested the transfer because we understood up to now that the Russians were prepared to consider international verification within the context of general disarmament, whereas they had refused to do it in the case of nuclear tests. Because we wanted to get over that hurdle we made this proposition. It was not our intention to delay things. We wanted to see progress.

Would not these conferences have a better chance of success if they were held in public in order to bring the force of world opinion to bear upon them?

That is a rather doubtful proposition. Sometimes when they are held in public we find people speaking for the record rather than trying to get agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the negotiations regarding Britain's entry into the Common Market, and the extent to which Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to accept the political integration of Western Europe.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress on the negotiations with the Common Market Governments.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British negotiations for entry into the European Common Market are being held up until 22nd February.

Since my statement on 18th December, I have attended a further meeting of Ministers in Brussels on 18th January. We again reviewed the progress made by officials and agreed that they should continue their work on nil tariffs, Commonwealth exports of manufactures and the problems of the underdeveloped members of the Commonwealth. They will also prepare for the next Ministerial meeting on 22nd February when in addition we shall begin the discussions on agriculture. As regards political integration, I have nothing to add to my answers to Questions on 29th November.

Is it not about time the Minister was frank with us? Is he aware that on 17th January in the Bundestag the West German Chancellor said that he hoped that agreement on economic integration would be a powerful impulse towards quick political integration? Can he say whether he agrees with that? Can he say without equivocation whether he supports or opposes political integration with Europe?

Our views on political integration were very clearly expressed in paragraph 22 of my speech in Paris on 10th October.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very great need in the country for far more instruction and information about what is happening, particularly if the Government want to have the nation with them?

Yes, Sir. I am indeed anxious that there should be the fullest understanding in the nation of the issues involved. At the same time, I think the House appreciates the difficulty about revealing details of confidential negotiations while they are going on.

Was the delay till 22nd February longer than was required or was wanted by the British, and how far was the length of that delay due to the wish of the Six to have time to make preparations and co-ordinate their attitude and policies towards anything that the British negotiators might propose?

As the agreement about a common agricultural policy was not reached between the Six until 14th January, it was not possible for us to start discussions about agriculture at the meeting on 18th January. It was then felt that, as the texts of the agreements were not available and were not likely to be available for some time, it was better to fix 22nd February as the date of the meeting, which gives time for us to study the texts and also for the Six to have consultations between themselves.

Going back to a previous answer, while the House understands the difficulties about giving details while negotiations are in progress, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Leader of the House was able to give many of the details in a speech to the Midlands Area Council of the Conservative Party—a lot of things which so far the Lord Privy Seal has refused to give the House?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the speech of the Leader of the House, he will find nothing in it which was not contained in my Paris speech of 10th October. I feel somewhat modest about repeating my own speeches.

While I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about the confidential nature of detailed negotiations, might I ask whether it would not help the purpose which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) has in mind and has just expressed if at least information could be given on some of the more fundamental matters; for example, in the context of Commonwealth safeguards, whether these are to be permanent or merely temporary, and whether they are to take account of growth of trade or are merely related to past and present performances?

My right hon. and learned Friend will find both matters dealt with in my Paris speech, and the outcome is, of course, what we are negotiating about.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that between the statement by the Prime Minister at the end of July last and the statement which he made in Paris last October there is a very wide gulf, particularly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) dealing with political integration? Is he aware that he owes it to the House to explain much more fully than he has done the reason why he moved so far between the time we debated this matter in August and the time he made his statement in Paris?

That is an entirely different question from the question which the right hon. Gentleman asked just now, which was about making further information available to the country. We are anxious that everything possible should be done by the Government or hon. Gentlemen opposite, or by publications, of which there have been a considerable number, through the Press and others, to make these issues plain.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish each agreement made with the European Economic Community as the negotiations proceed.

No, Sir.

In that case, if my right hon. Friend will not publish each detail as it is agreed, will he consult the Leader of the House about allowing at least two months of Parliamentary time for discussing the final result? It is far too big a subject to take in one debate.

I am afraid that it is not possible in trying to solve a number of intricate and inter-related problems of the kind we are dealing with in these negotiations to publish any particular item as one reaches a particular stage of the solution. When we reach the conclusion of the negotiations, I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion about time for the House to debate the matter.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the House, having given the Government authority to negotiate, should allow him and his colleagues to carry on these negotiations and not make in the interim statements which will only be used by those opposed to him as propaganda for their own purposes?

I said at the beginning of the negotiations that I would do my best to make information available to the House. Naturally, we are grateful for any consideration that we may receive of the kind indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Despite what my right hon. Friend has said in answer to this Question and the previous one, would he not agree that what is happening in the Fouchet Committee is of very great importance with regard to political integration? Would he not agree that it is quite possible that if the Fouchet Committee goes on as it is the whole situation will change politically while he himself is negotiating the economic aspect?

It is undoubtedly the case that the deliberations of the Fouchet Committee are of great importance. We have indicated that at a suitable time and in an appropriate way we should naturally like to be consulted in the negotiations. We have been given the substance of the documents which have been placed before the Committee, which is still studying them at official level.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what stage negotiations have now reached regarding conditions under which citizens of Commonwealth countries will be able to obtain jobs in this country in the event of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community, and regarding the conditions which will be applicable to citizens of member countries of the Community.

I have nothing to add to my Written Replies to Questions on this subject on 29th November and 5th December, 1961.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if we join the Common Market and if the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill goes through in its present form, Commonwealth citizens will not be worse off in this respect than citizens of the Six, particularly after the transitional period is over?

I told the House a short time ago that I dealt with this matter in my speech in Paris, when I said that we would wish to discuss with the Commission and the Six certain aspects of the Treaty of Rome which were not a matter of direct negotiations, apart from the three matters mentioned in the debate in the House. We have not yet reached that stage in our negotiations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he has now taken during his discussions with the representatives of the Common Market countries to agree an alteration of the provisions of Article 85 of the Rome Treaty which would prohibit British industrial enterprises fixing either directly or indirectly their purchase or selling prices if the United Kingdom were to become a member of the Common Market.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) on 29th November.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal know that many small industrial concerns in this country are anxious about losing their autonomy and possibly their power to fix buying and selling prices if Article 85 is not drastically altered? Cannot he say something which would allay the anxieties of those firms, some of them in my constituency?

I have not met this anxiety, but there may be some misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. Member, and if there is I should like to remove it. Article 85 of the Treaty deals solely with the removal of restrictive practices and is, therefore, designed to deal with price fixing by monopolies and not in any way to prevent small individual firms from fixing their own prices.

Would the Lord Privy Seal look at Article 85 again? It is quite definite and says that industrial concerns in this country would be prohibited from fixing their own buying or selling prices for the commodities which they produce. Can he give the assurance that, within the arrangements he is trying to make, these firms will have such freedom, quite apart from monopoly practices?

On each of the two last occasions when the hon. Member mentioned this matter he asked me to look at it again. I have done so, and I am quite clear that Articles 85 and 86 are concerned with monopolistic practices.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in the course of his negotiations for United Kingdom entry into the Common Market, he has been given the full text of the discussions taking place between members of the European Economic Community with regard to the agricultural provisons; and to what extent the position taken by the French Government in these discussions has caused British policy regarding the protection of domestic agricultural and temperate zone Commonweath products to be changed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what is the Government's policy in the forthcoming agricultural negotiations with the Rome Treaty Powers, in view of the statement by Dr. Sicco Mansholt, Chairman of the European Economic Community, Agricultural Commission, that Great Britain will have to accept the main provisions of the European Common Market's agricultural policy if she wants to join; and

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will publish a White Paper giving the full details of the agricultural agreement of the European Economic Community together with details as to the estimated effect of this agreement upon Commonwealth trade and British agriculture in the event of the United Kingdom joining the community.

The texts of the agreements reached by the members of the European Economic Community on their common agricultural policy are in course of examination by a special Committee of jurists and linguists from the member countries with a view to simultaneous publication in the four Community languages. I will arrange for copies in French to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are available. As Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the publication of this document, it would not be appropriate to publish an English translation as a White Paper, but as soon as a translation is ready I will arrange for it to be made available to Members in an appropriate way. As regards the effect of our membership of the Community on Commonwealth trade and British agriculture, this will depend on the arrangements which we are able to negotiate. The Government's policy remains as set out in my statement in Paris on 10th October.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that pledges which have been made to safeguard British agriculture and Commonwealth trade will have to be withdrawn if agreement is reached on the lines as agreed by the Six? Will the negotiations which take place be on the basis of the negotiations that have now been agreed among the Six or will the right hon. Gentleman want a completely new agreement?

The hon. Member has no basis on which to draw his first deduction. It is not true that pledges will have to be withdrawn. As to negotiations, the important thing is that the Six have reached a basis for a common agricultural policy on which we can negotiate.

Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing with the text of the agreement at least some of the factual information which can be provided at the moment in connection with the effect on Commonwealth trade, for example, the total levy which would be put on it if the agreement applied to it?

I see no point in endeavouring to work out information of this kind about a situation which is not what we are going to end with. We are in the process of negotiating to alter it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will never agree to an arrangement whereby this country has to put import levies on Commonwealth food?

I have given assurances to the House of Commons on a number of occasions and there is no need to repeat them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is now in a position to make a statement on the course and result of the international commission of inquiry into the "Red Crusader" incident which was due to begin on 21st November, 1961.

No, Sir. The case is still before the Commission, the proceedings of which are being held in private.

Does the Minister of State realise that this inquiry is taking a very long time and has an important bearing upon the law of the sea, particularly in the North Sea? Will he keep his eye on it and make a full report to the House and arrange for the full debate on it when the report is ready?

I will certainly keep my eye on it, but it is because of its important and far-reaching implications that it is taking a long time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the recent discussions by the Deputies of the Committee of Ministers with regard to Recommendation 290 of the Council of Europe concerning atmospheric pollution; and what action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Recommendation.

The Council of Europe Consultative Assembly's proposal for a conference on air pollution is still under consideration by the Committee of Ministers' Deputies. Her Majesty's Government are giving serious consideration to the issues raised by this proposal.

Will the Minister realise that this is probably the first opportunity we have had of trying to bring together all the multifarious experience and activities of different countries in this connection? Will he give close attention to the necessity for assisting in this direction by the implementation of that report?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many United Kingdom nationals have been successful in their applications to the Egyptian sequestration authorities for the release of their property.

By 31st December, 1961, 4,960 United Kingdom Nationals had applied to the Egyptian Sequestration authorities for the release of their property and release agreements had been signed, or were ready for signature, for 3,302 of these properties.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he any information about the condition of property which is still in Egypt? Secondly, can he give any measure of hope to people whose property is still there, much of it of sentimental value, including, as he knows, wedding presents in the case of one of my constituents?

It is not possible to give a general opinion about the state of property which remains, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, we will try to obtain that information for him. As far as we are able to see, the process of desequestration is continuing at about the normal rate.

Can my right hon. Friend say how many of the number quoted have been allowed to repatriate the sum of £5,000 a head, as agreed in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty?

I cannot give the figure for the transfer of £5,000. As my hon. Friend knows, by arrangement with Her Majesty's Government it was later altered to £1,000. We understand that for that figure approval has been given in 231 out of 260 applications.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now received an explanation from the Egyptian Government of the recent seizure of the property of British nationals; and what action he is taking to secure the rights of these British subjects.

I assume my hon. Friend refers to the recent sequestration measures. The United Arab Republic Government have now assured Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo that they are now examining the problem of British property affected by these measures and that they will remain in contact with him on the subject.

Would my night hon. Friend consider approaching the Governments of other foreign nationals also affected by this order, which was designed primarily for use against Egyptian subjects, to see what joint action could be taken?

We have approached them and are in consultation already with them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations were made to Her Majesty's Government by the United Nations, during the period in which Dr. O'Brien was the United Nations special representative in the Congo, in respect of British policy in Katanga: and what replies he sent.

As the local representative of the United Nations in Elisabethville from June to mid-November, Dr. O'Brien was in frequent touch with Her Majesty's Consul there, and they discussed all aspects of the Katanga situation. Close contact between Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations has also naturally been maintained through our representatives both in Leopoldville and in New York.

That reply to the question is riot complete. Is it not the case that the statement made at the time by Dr. O'Brien has been largely confirmed by the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Berwick-on-Tweed, in which he showed that he held the United Nations in very poor esteem indeed? How can the Foreign Secretary carry out the policy of a body for which he has shown such complete disregard?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my noble Friend's speech. In any case, the House will have, a full opportunity of discussing the speech at the beginning of next week.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what orders were given to United Nations troops in Katanga regarding the taking of prisoners; what inquiries have been held by the United Nations into the conduct of such troops; how many have been court-martialled; of what charges they were accused; and what were the results;

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom representative in the United Nations Organisation to press for an independent inquiry into the bombing of hospitals, attacks on ambulances and civilians, rape and other acts of violence by members of the United Nations forces in Katanga.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Secretary General of the United Nations in regard to the behaviour and lack of discipline of Ethiopian troops under United Nations command stationed in Elisabethville.

The Government have expressed their concern to the United Nations Organisation about allegations reflecting on the behaviour of United Nations forces in the Katanga. The United Nations Secretariat has informed the Government that instructions to their troops were that gendarmerie prisoners should be disarmed and held in protective custody; mercenaries should be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions. When allegations began to circulate that United Nations troops had exceeded these instructions, special measures were taken to investigate them and to punish offenders.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether the United Nations colonel who told the French newspaper Figaro

"I do not take any white prisoners"

The request was from the International Red Cross to the United Nations, and I understand that the proposal has been accepted. I think we must therefore wait to see the outcome. I have no confirmation of the case of the colonel to which my hon. Friend has referred.

In view of the fact that there is still a great deal of uncertainty about what has been happening in Katanga, and that we are, after all, paying these United Nations troops and are responsible for their actions, will my right hon. Friend not reconsider this matter of an independent inquiry, which seems most desirable?

I think that it is best to await the results of the present investigations which the United Nations is carrying out, but obviously we can make further representations later on, if necessary. There have been so many allegations from different sides—they have not merely come from one side—that it is important to get the facts clear.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply, in the view of many people, will not meet the case? This is a crisis of confidence in the United Nations for many people in this country. Is he aware that they want a general inquiry to find out what has been happening on both sides in Katanga? Will he press this matter and issue a White Paper?

This is a matter for the United Nations. We have discussed it with its representatives in New York. Whenever any case arises, our representatives there discuss the matter with the United Nations Secretariat. As far as we can, we follow these cases up in that way. It is not for us to initiate the independent inquiry suggested here. Let us await the outcome of the present investigations before taking further action.

While we welcome the fullest possible inquiry into all these allegations of atrocities by both sides—by mercenaries as well as by United Nations forces—may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in order to get this matter in balance with his hon. Friends, he will make available information, which I understand is in the possession of the Foreign Office, about the extent to which mercenaries were using hospitals for firing on United Nations troops, about the extent to which military vehicles were being painted with the red cross, and about the extraordinary fact that the number of ambulances said to have been damaged by United Nations forces far exceeds the number of ambulances known to be in the Congo?

It is these counter conflicting claims which make the whole thing so difficult to see. There are certainly allegations on both sides. This is not a one-sided matter. These are matters for the United Nations rather than for Her Majesty's Government at the present time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Nations is acting in our name, amongst those of other nations? Nothing is to be lost by any side in the discovery of the truth. Will he, therefore, initiate moves in the United Nations for a full and impartial inquiry into the allegations affecting both sides?

As I say, we have already discussed this on various occasions with the Acting Secretary-General, and, of course, our permanent representative in New York continues to do so whenever any new factors arise. It has been extremely difficult to get at the facts because there have been so many varying reports. But I think that we should wait until the findings of the existing inquiries which the United Nations is carrying out are made available.

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of rejecting the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that these atrocities were committed by order of the United Nations Command?

I did not say that.

If the Minister of State is not in a position to do so, will he invite the United Nations to make an explanatory statement or a denial at the earliest possible opportunity?

I was not aware that my hon. Friend made such a charge. Certainly I do not think anyone would for one moment accuse the United Nations command of deliberately giving instructions of that nature.

Will the inquiry also make investigation into the details of the campaign of organised atrocity propaganda against the United Nations?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to deny that I took these allegations as established. I invite the hon. Gentleman opposite to consult HANSARD.

No point of order arises, but the denial will have been heard.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now communicate with the Government of Portugal with a view to the termination of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now give notice to terminate the British alliance with Portugal.

I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) on the 24th January.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Treaty of 1661 was superseded by the arrangement of 1889, the terms of which specifically repeat the undertaking in the Treaty

"…to defend and protect all the conquests or colonies belonging to the Crown of Portugal against all his enemies"?

The Treaty is, of course, still in force, but, as has been made perfectly plain publicly and in this House, an explanation was given to the Portuguese Ambassador about our views on recent events. It was also made clear that responsibility lies upon a Government affected to call for a treaty to be invoked if they so desire.

What is the value of the treaty to Portugal, considering that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of applying it to her colonies?

Without accepting the implications in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, this matter goes wider than the question only of colonies.

While deprecating Portugal's actions in Angola—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that Portugal, in making bases in the Azores available to the allies during the last war, saved thousands of British lives. Will he take that into account?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much mare dignified to terminate this treaty, which is completely null and void in action and the existence of which obviously brings us into conflict with important members of the Commonwealth? Would it not be very much better to face the facts and see that this treaty is terminated?

No, Sir. I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's view. As far as our relationship with the Commonwealth is concerned, we have explained our views about Portuguese colonial policy on a number of occasions. It is fully understood. We have also explained the relationship of the treaty to our actions in the Commonwealth.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the position in the Congo.

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

Since my last statement Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe have signed an agreement at Kitona, which is now being considered by the Katanga Assembly. Discussions, including Katanga representatives, are now taking place in Leopoldville on a revision of the Congolese constitution. Talks about mercenaries have been held between the United Nations and Mr. Tshombe, who has dismissed a number of mercenaries, including their leader.

Will my right hon. Friend recall that a few moments ago when talking about Germany he used words to the effect that it was necessary to give a chance of self-determination and free decision? Will he give an assurance to the House that the same chance will be open to Katanga?

The view of the Government about Katanga as a province of the State of the Congo has always been made plain. We do not support the secession of the province of Katanga from the Congo.

Can the Minister say whether the Acting Secretary-General has withdrawn his request for the stationing of observers on the Katanga-Rhodesian border, and, if so, has he given any reason?

I understand that the Acting Secretary-General still has this matter under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the position of Mr. Gizenga? Is he aware that he was residing under United Nations protection and has been handed over to Colonel Mobutu? Is he aware of the considerable apprehension which exists in view of the fact that Colonel Mobutu handed Lumumba over to Tshombe and that a similar happening may possibly occur in the case of Mr. Gizenga?

The information we have is that when he arrived at Leopoldville Mr. Gizenga asked for United Nations protection and this was given. He then asked to leave their protection and go to live in Leopoldville, and that was entirely his own responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all very much welcome the statement made by Mr. Tshombe about his decision to clear out the mercenaries? In view of the desirability of this becoming 100 per cent. effective, would the right hon. Gentleman take very seriously the obligation and duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that the frontier is closed to any possible movement of mercenaries in that area?

My right hon. Friend has said that Her Majesty's Government do not support the secession of Katanga. Will he clear up the situation? Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government are for or against the use of force to prevent the secession of Katanga? Does Her Majesty's Government admit the right of any portion of the Congo to self-determination?

Her Majesty's Government have always indicated their view—this has been the cause of controversy in the House—that these matters should be dealt with by conciliation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Canada.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 24th January in reply to a Question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).

Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that there will be no sniping attacks on the Canadian Government's policy as there have been in recent months? Is he aware that many of the present misunderstandings, which my right hon. Friend may have now ironed out, need never have arisen had there been full, free and frank disclosure of what was taking place from the beginning?

If there have been sniping attacks on the Canadian Government's policy—and certainly no such complaints were made while I was in Ottawa—they have not come from Her Majesty's Government.

May I ask whether during his talks with the Canadian Ministers my right hon. Friend expressed the pleasure of the United Kingdom Government that during the period of the Diefenbaker Administration Canadian imports from United Kingdom have increased by nearly 30 per cent.? Did he discuss with the Canadian Ministers how this very favourable trend might be continued?

We had general discussions about all these trade matters.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the detention by the South African police of a British protected person, Mr. Ambrose Zwane, secretary of the People's Party, when returning from a conference of the Bechuanaland People's Party.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) on 25th January.

May I ask whether any assurance has been given by the Government of the Republic of South Africa that British subjects passing from one British protectorate to another shall be allowed full transit facilities over the territory of the Republic?

We have brought this matter strongly to the attention of South Africa, which, no doubt, contributed to the result in this case. I think that this is a matter which we have made plain to the South African authorities, and we trust that there will be no repetition.

Is the Minister aware that this is not the only incident of this kind and that there is considerable danger of the number of actions of this kind increasing? Is he aware that he may avoid even greater difficulties in future were he to make perfectly clear now that we take a very serious view of it?

I think that we have already taken steps to that end with regard to this particular action.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information the Government of the Republic of South Africa have provided regarding the alleged kidnapping on 26th August of Anderson Ganyile and two other Africans from Basutoland by South African police.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement about the arrest and subsequent release of Mr. Ganyile.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the case of Mr. Ganyile.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement about the alleged kidnapping on 26th August of Mr. Anderson Ganyile and two other Africans.

The South African Government have now given us a full account of the circumstances of Mr. Ganyile's arrest by South African police on Basutoland territory. They have informed us that the South African police crossed into Basutoland by mistake while searching for suspected murderers in the South African native trust territory adjoining Basutoland and arrested Mr. Ganyile and his companions under the mistaken impression that they were the individuals for whom they were searching. The South African Government have expressed their regrets at this violation of British territory and they have also released Mr. Ganyile and his companions without pursuing the charges against them. We have left the South African Government in no doubt of the serious view which we take of this violation of Basutoland territory.

Is not this just a shocking delay on the part of the Government of the Republic in providing our Government with information? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these three men were kidnapped from British territory away back on 26th August? Is he aware that they have been kept in prison ever since, most of the time in solitary confinement? In these circumstances, will the Government not only demand an apology from the Government of the Republic but ask that proper compensation shall be paid to the three men?

As I have said, we have already expressed our very serious view of the circumstances. We made continual representations in this case, and that, I believe, has led to the outcome which We have seen. The South African Government are in no doubt of our views about this. Regarding the question of compensation, I understand that Mr. Ganyile is making a claim for compensation from the South African Government. I think that those representations should go forward in his name.

What steps are the Administration in Basutoland taking to prevent a repetition of this disgraceful mistake? Where are these three men now, and may I have an assurance that they will be allowed to return to Basutoland?

The Basutoland authorities are taking steps to deal with this matter. Mr. Ganyile has returned to Basutoland and has applied for permission to reside there. His application is being considered in the normal way according to the normal procedures of Basutoland.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that these police officers were not aware that they were in a protected territory and were not aware that the persons they were arresting were Mr. Ganyile and his companions is totally unconvincing? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that Mr. Ganyile, I understand, wishes to proceed to Durban to make a claim against the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore facilitate his journey to Durban, which I understand has not been granted by the South African Government?

On the first part of that question, the facts I related were as given by the South African Government, that is, as to the history, as they gave them to us. As to the second part, Mr. Ganyile is a South African resident, a South African national, and as such presumably would be subject to South African laws in relation to travel in that territory. I have explained his position in Basutoland.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very strong feeling in Basutoland on this issue—by the Basutoland Freedom Party and the Congress Party—that there should be a full investigation of the matter? Will he press for an inquiry of this kind?

Certainly if further facts can be brought to light I shall do that, but the facts we have given, the release secured and the apology given I think clarify the position very much.

While not always supporting all the attacks made on South Africa, may I ask if my hon. Friend will agree that the issue of compensation is one which can be legitimately pursued in this matter?

As I have indicated, Mr. Ganyile proposes to seek compensation. He is a South African national and it is for him to pursue the matter.

Are we to understand that Her Majesty's Government will support a claim for compensation? That is what we want to know; it is a specific question.

As I have indicated, a claim for compensation has gone in. It is for Mr. Ganyile to put the claim forward. I do not think that support from Her Majesty's Government arises at this time.

Since the Government are not as simple as the hon. Gentleman is making them appear, will he answer this question? Since the police officers concerned must have known within a few hours that they were in the wrong country, and since this occurred last August and it has taken four or five months to find that the charges which have been laid were not appropriate, will he make absolutely clear here and now that the apology we have had is not sufficient for everything that has happened and that the Government will firmly stand behind Mr. Ganyile in the matter of compensation for this quite illegal detention?

I think the two points are separate. On the question of Her Majesty's Government's protest, we have made quite clear that we take a very serious view of what has taken place. As to Mr. Ganyile's application for compensation, I think it should go forward in the normal way. He is a South African citizen and should make his application through the courts.