asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ask the United Nations to publish a yearly estimate of the income per capita of all its members in a common currency, so that comparisons between their standards of living may be readily available; and if he will make a statement.

While sympathising with my hon. Friend's desire to simplify such comparisons. I fear that such a table could be misleading if based simply on exchange rates; while to make calculations for all the different factors involved would be either arbitrary or extremely complicated.

I recognise the limitations. May I ask what is the estimated income per capita, say, of this country, of Indian and of Pakistan; and, if they were average, what sort of average, or what would be the sacrifice which the people of this country would have to make in order to make freedom from hunger a reality?

I can give only an approximate answer. But I should say that for the United Kingdom something like £400 per annum and for India and Pakistan about £20. The average would come out between £50 and £60. This would show the big difference that is pointed out by my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present financial position of the United Nations Organisation; which countries are in arrears with their dues; and what action is to be taken against defaulting members.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give instructions to his representative at the United Nations to raise the subject of the United Nations' financial position, in view of the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice in July of last year entitled, Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the Charter, in regard to the Congo.

The most recent information regarding the state of contributions to the Regular and Special accounts of the United Nations is contained in the United Nations Secretariat document dated 25th February, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. According to that document arrears of contributions on 31st January this year amounted to approximately 116 million dollars. As against this, receipts from the United Nations Bond Issue totalled on 15th February a little over 124 million dollars.

Can the Minister of State say whether the Soviet and French Governments are still refusing to pay their contributions in spite of the advisory opinion received from the International Court of Justice? If so, does not this continued refusal to pay constitute a serious threat to the continued existence of the United Nations itself?

A number of countries are still refusing to pay these contributions, in particular for the Congo operation. The Soviet bloc, in addition, refuse to pay contributions for the Middle East Force. All these matters are being considered by this working group to see if we could get out of the present impasse. Both the Soviet Union and France are members of that group and so are the British Government. We hope that something may come from it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any further statement to make on the recent talks between the British and Danish Governments on the question of fishery limits off the Faroe Islands, and on the result of the consideration by the Governments concerned of the outcome of those talks.

There is nothing further I can say at this stage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the smaller trawler owners in the Grimsby area are vitally affected by the question of the Faroe fishing limits and that they are facing great difficulties? Could he do something to help them?

I fully appreciate the situation regarding our fishing industry. I have had the opportunity to talk to many hon. Members about it. The situation is that at the first meeting the British and Danish Governments had about this matter, they agreed to give consideration to the points of view put before them by both sides, and we are awaiting a further meeting.

Without belittling in any way any bilateral agreement which may be reached, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the time has come for him to invite all Scandinavian countries to get an overall settlement of this problem rather than trying to solve it in this way?

This is a particular problem which must, of course, be solved. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said about the wider objective of a common fisheries policy.

asked the Lord Privy Seal which Government Departments are concerned with the disarmament negotiations now in progress at Geneva; which of them are represented in the British delegation; and what is the total number of British officials taking part.

Responsibility for conducting disarmament negotiations is vested in the Foreign Office, which is advised by the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments as necessary. The British delegation at Geneva is led by myself, supported by some nine Foreign Service officers and two senior representatives from the Ministry of Defence. When necessary, additional officers from these and from other Government Departments are attached to the Delegation.

Would the Government be prepared to look at the composition of the delegation with a view to strengthening it so that we have the most effective possible team at this vital stage in the negotiations?

If I thought that it needed strengthening, I should not hesitate a moment to recommend that. At the moment we have the third largest delegation at these talks and I think we play a very full part in them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, what initiative Her Majesty's Government are taking at the disarmament negotiations in Geneva in the way of proposals on manpower levels.

There has been no recent discussion of this aspect of disarmament at Geneva.

Since the original Russian proposals were for a reduction to 1·7 million at the end of the first stage as compared with the United States figure of 2·1 million, and the Russians have since compromised at a figure of 1·9 million, and since one of our aims has been to get a reduction in Russian conventional forces which are much larger than ours, why cannot the new Russian proposals now be accepted? What is holding up the acceptance of these figures and what are the British Government doing about it?

This is not a matter which has been the subject of detailed discussion at any time during our discussions in Geneva. I have indicated that the British view is that the difference in figures should not be a stumbling block in reaching agreement, but this is not one of the main issues at all. We are seeking to concentrate on this problem at present.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now raise in the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace the training in the ex-Belgian Congo of private armies headed by Holden Roberto and Mario Andrade and estimated at 25,000 troops, with the object of the armed invasion of neighbouring African territories.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing Answer? Does he recall the frightful consequences of the last invasion of Portuguese territory from across the Congo frontier? Has any British diplomatic or consular representative been to Brazzaville to see for himself? Does my right hon. Friend think that what is going on there is compatible with the Congo Republic's membership of the United Nations?

I understand that some members of the Angola Nationalist Movement are being trained as my hon. Friend has described, but I do not think that the information we have justifies the figures mentioned in his Question. I do not think there is any question of a threat to British territory as a result of this. If there were a threat to Portuguese territory as my hon. Friend suggests, the initiative would rest with the Portuguese Government.

Will the Lord Privy Seal also bear in mind resolutions adopted by committees of the United Nations regarding the administration of these territories by Portugal?

That is quite a separate question from the training of the Angola Nationalist Movement in the Congo.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us about the instruction which it has been said has been carried out by Algerians in this area and also gun running on a large scale?

I have not the detailed information for which my hon. Friend asks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made since the latest agreement between the Leopoldville Government and Mr. Tshombe, to establish the Thant plan for a Congo Federation; and what information he has about the recall of Parliament in Leopoldville.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the extent of the co-operation between the Central Government of the Congo and the Provisional Government of South Katanga on the national reconciliation plan.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in implementing the Thant plan for the Congo.

There have been no major developments in these matters since the reply which I gave on 13th March to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that proposals put forward, notably on 29th January last, by Mr. Ileo in Elisabethville for the reorganisation of the Congo Republic go even further in centralism than the loi fondamentale? Will he urge the United Nations and United States officials in the Congo—who seem to have such influence over the United Nations—to apply the U Thant plan?

Her Majesty's Government have always been in support of the U Thant plan and have indicated this very clearly in the United Nations and to the Government of the Congo in Leopoldville. The content of the constitution is a matter which must be settled in the Congo. I understand that the draft constitution is being put before the Assembly.

Has the Minister had any information whether the Central Government of the Congo are satisfied with the progress being made and with the cooperation they are getting from the Provincial Government?

I do not know whether the Government are satisfied or whether any Government are ever satisfied, but I believe it is the view of the Government at Leopoldville that there is co-operation between themselves and Mr. Tshombe, and that is also the view of the United Nations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that developments are confirming the worst fears we have expressed in the past? Will he particularly, on a specific point, press for an inquiry into the behaviour of the Ethiopian troops in Elisabethville, where I hear that Katangese are now frightened to go to work after 12 midday, by which time the Ethiopians are mostly drunk—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and completely out of the control of their officers? The Katangese are afraid to stay at work. Will my right hon. Friend ask for an inquiry?

If my hon. Friend has detailed information of that kind, I shall certainly have inquiries made about it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what inquiries have recently been received by Her Majesty's Embassies concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Harold Philby; and if he will make a statement.

On 24th January, at the request of Mrs. Philby, Her Majesty's Embassy at Beirut made inquiries of the Lebanese authorities to try to trace the whereabouts of Mr. Philby who had been missing since the previous evening. Subsequently Mrs. Philby informed the Embassy that she had received a reassuring letter and a telegram from Mr. Philby in Cairo. In view of this the inquiries of the Lebanese authorities were not pressed.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House a little more information than that in response to my request for a statement? Does he realise that, in view of disclosures made in this House by the Prime Minister on 7th November, 1955, there will be very grave disquiet in the public mind until the whereabouts of Mr. Philby are discovered?

I have given my hon. Friend all the information which is in our possession. It is not possible for me to speculate on the whereabouts of Mr. Philby. On the last point in his Question, it may reassure my hon. Friend to know that since Mr. Philby resigned from the Foreign Service in 1951–12 years ago—he has had no access of any kind to any official information.

Would it not be more in the public interest if the machinery of State were concentrated on tracing the whereabouts in England of missing witnesses?

That is wholly out of order. It does not arise.

asked the Lord Privy Seal in which overseas countries British diplomats are entitled to obtain domestically produced spirits free of excise duty.

British diplomats are entitled to obtain domestically produced spirits free of excise, or equivalent, duty in 18 countries. In two other countries they are entitled to specially reduced prices. I will put the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British diplomats in those 18 countries are resting on the good nature of the local populations and that we in this country are not reciprocating to their diplomats here? This must be rather embarrassing to the Foreign Office. Will my right hon. Friend mention it to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I think that my right hon. Friend is aware of the position.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Nuclear Test Ban Conference at Geneva.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on developments in the talks on ending nuclear test explosions, and on the initiative being taken by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have now put forward at the disarmament negotiations in Geneva on the number of on-site inspections to be permitted in the Soviet Union as part of a test-ban treaty.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has made of the present proposals of the eight neutral countries, made at Geneva, aimed at ending the deadlock between the nuclear powers in regard to underground tests; and if he will make a statement on them.

I regret that no further progress has been made in the latest dis- cussions a Geneva on a nuclear test ban treaty. The major point of difficulty is in the field of on-site inspections, where the West feel that seven such inspections on Soviet territory are necessary annually and the Soviet Government is willing to concede only three. There are of course a number of other substantive matters to be agreed on, but so far, as my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the Russians have refused to discuss them unless their offer of three on-site inspections is first accepted. Although there have been reports that the eight non-aligned delegations intend to put forward new proposals, they have not so far done so.

In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that no progress is likely to be made by entering into a public auction on numbers of on-site inspections, and as there does exist a wide measure of agreement, is it not time that the three Foreign Ministers returned to Geneva and themselves took over the responsibility for these negotiations?

My noble Friend has been taking a very close interest in all this, and I am sure that if he felt that it would help he would be very ready to go. At the moment, we are in a real difficulty in relation to these numbers, but I will take note of that point.

In supporting my right hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether the Minister of State is aware that many people are completely disgusted and hopeless about the four years of failure of the U.S., U.S.S.R. and U.K. Governments to reach agreement because of mutual suspicion'? Would not the best solution be for Britain to declare forthwith that she will end all her tests and invite inspection, and ask the other two countries to follow her initiative?

I can understand that there is a feeling of disappointment that we have not been able to make further progress, but I do not think that suggestions such as that would really help us towards agreement.

When the gap between the Russian proposals of three on-site inspections and the Western proposal of seven inspections is so small, is it not completely indefensible that the negotiations should seem to be foundering on this point? Why cannot the British Government put forward a compromise proposal of, say, five on-site inspections? Have the Government done this?

I have tried to make it plain on a number of occasions that although the numbers are fairly close together, the bases on which they are arrived at are entirely different. The Soviet Union have all along said that they have put forward this number only for purely political reasons; they do not see the need for any on-site inspections. We have said that we base ourselves on the best scientific advice available to us. If the Soviet Union have better scientific advice, we ask them to bring it forward. If they do not do so, we can only presume that they do not possess it.

As even the neutral nations seem unable to provide any proposals that will induce general agreement, does not that give the noble Lord the Secretary of State a still greater opportunity to achieve a compromise? Apart altogether from the scientific knowledge behind each of the proposals, would not the Secretary of State consider a compromise such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) as a basis of negotiation?

It is all very well to propose compromise, but unless we can have some confidence that the other side will also be willing to compromise, there is little prospect of making progress there. Of course, one can make informal contacts in relation to this, and I am sure that my noble Friend will be glad to do anything he can to get agreement, but it is no good ignoring these basic facts, and the fact is that to get a treaty which one had no confidence would be carried out would be a mockery.

Is it not important that the British Government—while, of course, remaining in the Western Alliance—should take the initiative in the matter? Is it really not possible to work on the lines of fewer on-site inspections and a corresponding increase in the "black box" technique? After all, it is on a combination of these two things that we shall finally have agreement.

It is the combination of these with other matters as well, and we have asked the Soviet Union to go into detail in relation to the other matters. That is to enable us to see whether any compromise can be reached. So far, they have refused to go into the question of the additional number of "black boxes" or other modalities. We have urged them many times—I have done so myself recently—to discuss these matters with us. If they would, there might be some prospect of making progress.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies we have had, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why permission has been refused for a visit to England by the Berliner Ensemble; and if he will reconsider this decision.

The Ensemble has not, in fact, applied for the necessary travel documents for such a visit. But it is the general policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at present not to grant travel facilities to East German visitors of this sort.

With regard to the first part of that reply, is it not the case that arrangements were made for such a visit? Is it not just dodging the question to say that they have not applied?

No, Sir—not at all. I am not aware of what arrangements were made for the visit. The information I have is that they have not applied for the necessary travel documents for them to make the visit.

If they do, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they will be granted permission?

In the second part of my Answer—which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate—I said that it is the general policy not to grant travel facilities for East German visitors of that kind.

Is not that extremely silly?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now recognise the republican Government of the Yemen.

No, Sir. But Her Majesty's Government are keeping the question of whether the Yemeni republican regime fulfils the normal criteria for recognition under consideration.

Are not the Government being excessively cautious in this, since the republican regime has now been in power for nearly six months and previous revolutions have lasted only a matter of days? Will not the Lord Privy Seal seriously examine how far non-recognition is affecting our relationship for the worse with Arab nationalist forces in the Middle East, which are gaining in strength all the time?

It is not so much a question of how long a revolution has lasted but of the conditions in the country in which the revolution has taken place, and the degree of control over it. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, our relationship with the other countries is one of the factors to be taken into consideration the whole time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to many of us on this side; and that, in fact, it is desperately important that no recognition should be given to a régime supported from outside its own borders?

In this case, we shall continue to apply the normal criteria for recognition.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now raise at the United Nations the Egyptian air bombardment of civilians and their property in Yemen, including the use of napalm, as a threat to peace; and whether he will make a statement, having particular regard to relevant international conventions.

Dr. Bunche, the Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat, recently paid an exploratory visit to the Yemen and has returned to New York to report to the Secretary-General. I should prefer to await the outcome of this before making any comment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent senior members of the Foreign Office are seconded to universities and research institutions for the purpose of undertaking periods of research into the technical problems of disarmament and the creation of a world authority.

No senior members of the Foreign Office have been or are seconded to universities or research institutions for this purpose, but close informal contacts are maintained between these bodies and the Foreign Office departments concerned.

But would it not be worth while from the point of view of both the Foreign Office and the universities to encourage serious research on these important subjects of disarmament and the creation of a world authority? I understand that this has been very fruitful as between the American State Department and the American universities. Will the hon. Gentleman look at it again?

We are perfectly willing to consider this. If there were a demand from universities, or any of these research institutes, we should be very glad to consider it seriously.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will take steps towards the formation of the European Free Trade Association countries and the Commonwealth into an Oceanic Economic Community.

No, Sir. It is the Government's policy to promote trade and closer economic co-operation both with the European Free Trade Association countries and with the Commonwealth, but their interests do not provide a realistic basis for an Economic Community.

But does not my right hon. Friend think that this proposal offers far wider scope for both political and economic development than the hidebound, inward-looking Common Market community dominated by President de Gaulle?

There is an opportunity for development in the E.F.T.A. countries and in the Commonwealth, but my hon. Friend, as I understood him, was suggesting that we should bring the two groups into one community. I am afraid that the present position of the groups does not make that a realistic proposition.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service in the period 1952–62 were educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and at the remaining British universities, respectively; and what percentages these figures constitute in each case.

One hundred and ninety-five, that is, 94·2 per cent., of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service by the normal Open Competitions in the period 1952–62 were educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities; 11. that is, 5·3 per cent., at the remaining British universities.

While in no way disparaging the very high quality of Oxford and Cambridge graduates, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that a figure of 5 per cent. of applicants is drawing upon the reservoir of talent and ability in our English, Welsh and Scottish universities?

The Foreign Office is anxious to encourage recruitment from all these universities, and members of the personnel department make annual visits to all of them to explain what the Foreign Service does and what opportunities are open to graduates. I hope that we shall see an increase in these figures.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service in the period 1952–62 were educated at independent public schools, direct grant schools and State schools, respectively; and what percentages these figures constitute in each case.

As stated in the first line of the table included in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman on 18th March, 143, that is, 70 per cent., of the successful applicants for Branch A of the Foreign Service by the normal open competitions, were educated at independent public schools, 17, or 8 per cent., at direct grant schools, and 42, or 20 per cent., at State schools.

Again, does the Minister of State think that one in five of successful applicants from our State schools is really representative of the number of boys attending these schools or is in line with the policy of other Government Departments? Will the hon. Gentlemen ensure that his careers officers get round to the State schools to explain and illustrate the benefits of a Foreign Office career?

I would point out that the trend in this matter is in favour of more coming from the direct grant and State schools. In 1960–62, 61 per cent. of successful applicants came from public schools and 39 per cent. from other schools. In 1962 itself less than 50 per cent. came from the public schools. I would point out that the basis of entry into the Foreign Service is that laid down by Mr. Ernest Bevin when he was Foreign Secretary.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the searching by Customs officials of British subjects in transit from the High Commission Territories to the United Kingdom.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a prominent British subject, an African from Basutoland, having the necessary passport and the necessary ticket facilities to come to London, was detained in Johannesburg and searched in detail by the South African authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that just as we would not tolerate this in Paris or in Prague, we will not tolerate it in Johannesburg?

I have seen a report in in the South African Press. There was such a gentleman who was subjected to this, but no complaint has been made in relation to this matter to our representatives. If a complaint were received, naturally we would look into it.

Is it merely the policy of Her Majesty's Government to wait until complaints are received relating to British subjects who are treated in this intolerable way? Does not the Foreign Office take some initiative on behalf of British subjects?

I think that this is getting a little Out of proportion. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that if a complaint is made we should look into it, but I would point out that the Customs authorities in any country are entitled to search any person entering that country.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the new American proposal in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a multilateral nuclear force.

May I point out that the word "multilateral" in the Question should be "multinational". It is my mistake.

That, of course, makes it a fundamentally different Question. May I therefore provide an Answer? The new American proposal is not a proposal for a multinational force. The proposal for a multinational force, or the paragraph 6 force of the Nassau communiqué, was taken on the initiative of our own Prime Minister.

In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman exercise the greatest caution in accepting the proposal for surface Polaris missiles on ships and also the proposal for a mixed force? Before any definite conclusion is reached about this matter, will the Government consult the House?

Perhaps I can now assure the right hon. Gentleman that his Question as printed on the Order Paper was really what he meant to ask. The question of a surface force to which he referred is only in connection with the multilateral force. We have had the advantage of discussions with Mr. Merchant about this and we are now considering all the implications of these proposals.

On a point of order. I did not catch what the Minister said. Is Question No. 32 being taken with this Question?

Not as far as I know.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Americans have made so many proposals that ii is rather likely that some of us are confused about them?

I always do my best to clarify issues for the right hon. Gentleman.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have yet made any estimate of the cost to Britain of making a contribution towards the multilateral force and how that compares with the contribution towards the multinational force, to which Her Majesty's Government are committed, and the cost of the TSR2 deterrent force and the cost of continuing the V-bomber force to which the Government are also already committed?

Now that we have had discussions with Mr. Merchant and we have the figure of cost which is in the minds of the American Administration, we are considering the way we can best help. The figure bears no relation to the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) yesterday.

Will the Government concentrate British resources on a British deterrent rather than indulge in these preposterous polyglot Polaris proposals?

I cannot possibly accept that rather cleverly worded supplementary question by my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the multinational agreement on the use of the nuclear weapons assigned to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces imposes international control on the use by the United States of America of its own nuclear forces.

The arrangements for control over the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force remain to be worked out.

Is there any prospect of that system of control operating in regard to American nuclear forces outside N.A.T.O.? Is there any prospect, for instance, of N.A.T.O. approval being required before the United States threatens to resort to nuclear force as she did in the case of Cuba?

This is a question of N.A.T.O. nuclear forces.

Not the American forces?

Could the hon. Gentleman clear up the matter in relation to a multinational force? I understand that so far the Supreme Allied Commander Europe has never been given any control over strategic nuclear weapons. Is it intended that under Her Majesty's Government's proposals for a supranational N.A.T.O. force as put before the N.A.T.O. Council this morning, S.A.C.E.U.R. should be given direct control of a strategic nuclear strike force?

I have already explained that these questions of the control of the force have got to be worked out by the Alliance generally, and I am not prepared to say what our proposals are going to be in the context of the general discussions in the Alliance.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for a multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation deterrent force.

No, Sir. A White Paper would not be appropriate at this stage.

Since reports of the Foreign Secretary's speech are already appearing on the tape, and since his speech was listened to by a very large number of functionaries of a very large number of European countries, is it not desirable that the House of Commons and the British people should have some information about Her Majesty's Government's proposals on this extremely important matter? So far, there seems to have been total equivocation and confusion on the Government's part.

There is no equivocation on the Government's part. It is a question of how much information should be made available publicly on the course of confidential discussions between allies. But I will certainly consider the earliest moment at which it is possible to give further information to the House.

Since there was practically nothing in the Defence White Paper, and since it is obvious that discussions—reasonably—are being held, will my right hon. Friend give us a specific undertaking that when eventually we develop a defence policy we shall have the opportunity of debating it?

This matter was fully debated during the defence debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was discussion on this point during the debate on the Nassau communiqué. However, if it is the desire of the House to debate the matter, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government propose to take a definite decision on this very important matter without consulting the House? Will he say what is in the Government's mind about this?

No, I did not say that. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to misinterpret me. There are discussions going on at the moment inside the Alliance, in which all the countries concerned can take part, in order to try to work out the arrangements which should be made first for the multinational force and then for the multilateral force. I have assured hon. Members that, if they desire a debate, the Leader of the House will give full consideration to that matter in the normal way and that I will consult my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to see how soon we can give to the House further information of a more detailed kind about the arrangements for this force.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is what hon. Members on both sides are asking for? It appears that this morning the Foreign Secretary has put before our allies some ideas and proposals in the name of the British Government. The House would like to know what proposals are being made. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a White Paper giving us the information which the Foreign Secretary has this morning given to the representatives of all the other members of the Alliance?

I have explained to the House—and the House has always accepted it on previous occasions—that when confidential discussions are going on between allies they cannot be carried on in public but that as soon as it is possible to make further information available we will do so. That is the undertaking which I have given.

How confidential can he a statement made before 14 other members of the Alliance and reports of which are already on the tape and will be widely printed tonight or tomorrow morning? It is now beyond the stage of a confidential exchange of ideas and is at the point of formal presentation of views. Therefore, surely the House should know what views we are putting forward.

I have already given the House the undertaking that I will consider with my noble Friend how much information can be made available following his speech to N.A.T.O.

asked the Lord Privy Seal on what date Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Togo telephoned his official report on the assassination of the President of Togo; at what time it was sent; at what time it was first received in the Commonwealth Relations Office in London; and at what time it reached the Foreign Office.

The President was assassinated at approximately 7.25 a.m. on Sunday, 13th January. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires telephoned his report to the High Commissioner in Accra at 9 a.m. After being encyphered the message was despatched at 10.45 a.m. It was received in the Commonwealth Relations Office at 12 noon and communicated to the Foreign Office after de-cyphering at 12.20.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether this rather cumbersome communications system does not illustrate the difficulties in Africa where there are Commonwealth countries and independent foreign countries in relation to the Foreign Office? What steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate the communications system between foreign countries in Africa, Commonwealth countries and Colonial Territories?

I thought that it was a pretty good record on communications. I am only sorry that we had to get the High Commissioner out of bed early on Sunday morning, but it operated successfully in this case. Communications in Togo had been closed down and therefore this was a very good piece of work on the part of our representative.

If this news was in all the newspapers, why did it have to be sent in cipher?

Certainly it was not in all the newspapers al; that time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the official visit to London of Mr. Livingston Merchant.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Mr. Livingston Merchant, President Kennedy's representative, on the multilateral or multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear forces.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent talks in London which Her Majesty's Government have had with Mr. Livingston Merchant.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about his discussions with the United States authorities on the proposed Polaris surface ship contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

These talks were, of course, confidential and I have no statement to add to the communiqué issued after the meetings. We were very glad to have this opportunity of detailed discussions with Mr. Merchant and the members of his mission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please be a little less coy about the expenditure which is likely to be incurred by Her Majesty's Government in accepting, at least in principle, Mr. Merchant's proposals for a multilateral surface force under N.A.T.O.? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that £200 million, which is the figure that I gave yesterday, bears no relation to the actual cost. Could he say what, in fact, is a rough order of expenditure in which this country will be involved if this multilateral force ever comes into existence?

I am not prepared to give detailed figures to the House at this stage.

I do not want detailed figures.

We have now been given the broad outline of the American proposals. We say that we are studying these proposals and that we are considering how we can best assist.

Is it not the case that the Bahamas Agreement only speaks about a multilateral nuclear force on which the President and the Prime Minister agreed? Does not the expression "multinational" only derive from Article 6 of the Agreement? Is it not now clear that these two ideas are in conflict? How did the two signatories come to an agreement on a treaty which contains two ideas that are in conflict?

These ideas are in no way in conflict. The multinational force flows from paragraph 6 of the communiqué and is obviously the first stage because the force is already available. It will become the first stage of a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. The multilateral force flows from paragraph 8 of the communiqué and will come later.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that once upon a time it used to be the custom for the Press to get their information on foreign affairs occasionally from things that happened in this House? Is it not pretty lowering to the dignity of this House to have to depend for information and rumour of what has happened entirely on the Press? Will my right hon. Friend take the House of Commons into his confidence and allow us to consult with him before any action is taken on this very important matter?

I am always anxious to give the House all the information which we have. But when one is discussing a matter which is of concern not only to this country but to all the members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and when it is based upon proposals which are put to us by the United States and which are not our own proposals, it would have been inappropriate for me to give all the details to the House while they are in this early stage.

Can my right hon. Friend say what is the view of Her Majesty's Government? Have we been approached to contribute to a surface fleet armed with Polaris and manned by men of various nations? If so, is it the view of the Government that we should contribute to this force as well as allocate Polaris submarines?

The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the American proposals for a multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships is one which deserves support. We have undertaken to examine what contributions we can make to this force.

Financial?

In any form which is appropriate. So far we have not reached any conclusions about it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as I am sure he is, that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made a statement on this matter in conjunction with the Minister of Defence of Western Germany on Monday? I presume the Foreign Office at some stage informed the right hon. Gentleman of this statement and that Her Majesty's Government, according to this statement, have accepted the idea of contributing to a multilateral force?

There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be so objectionable in a supplementary question. I have said nothing which is in conflict with the communiqué issued yesterday after the talks between my right hon. Friend and the German Minister of Defence.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have recently been discussing the Defence Estimates and the defence programme of the Government, can you say whether there is any way in which hon. Members on the back benches can raise the question of a change of Government policy which appears to conflict with the Statement on Defence, which contained nothing at all in any case?

If the hon. Gentleman wants procedural advice I should be grateful if he would inquire afterwards so that we do not lose time for Questions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government of chartering on 8th March a DC.7C airliner from Gatwick to Moscow carrying 8 tons of building materials, Government workmen and two bags of cement.

£2,373.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence by telling us why these 8 tons of materials, British workmen and, in particular, two bags of cement were conveyed all the way from this country to do some small repairs to the British Embassy in Moscow?

The hon. Gentleman can have a perfectly clear answer. These materials and the workmen were required to make alterations to the Chancery in Moscow of a security nature.

Instead of incurring an expenditure of £2,300, what would it have cost to have had this work done by local workmen in Moscow without infringing vital security measures?

There is no point in trying to make an estimate of the cost of doing that because we are not prepared to infringe security arrangements.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these two bags of cement were Portland cement or a code name for something more insidious?

I think I said it was cement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to convene a conference of the Heads of Government of the seven countries of Western European Union with the specific purpose of ascertaining the views and intentions of the President of France regarding the future of the European Economic Community. Western European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western Alliance generally.

No, Sir. I do not think a meeting for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend would at present be appropriate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I put this Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the hope that he would take this initiative? Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the Governments and peoples of Europe fully realise the suicidal implications of the French President's plan for the Continent?

There are, of course, two views of how Europe should develop, and I think that our own has been perfectly well expressed. There would probably be considerable use in having a meeting of Western European Union at Foreign Minister level in the near future and as soon as it can be arranged, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the present trading position of the Forestry Commission shown by the recent Supplementary Estimates reveals an increase over the original estimates of £500,000 in respect of salaries and wages and a decrease of £110,000 in respect of timber sales during the current year; and what action is being taken to remedy this.

Yes, Sir. The Supplementary Estimate was due partly to a salary award, which applied throughout the Civil Service, and a wage increase to forest workers during the year; and partly to a fall in prices obtained for softwood thinnings.

Will my right hon. Friend have another look at the situation because in the last five years, during which wages have risen, the Forestry Commission has increased its sales from 5·3 million hoppus feet to 11.6 million hoppus feet? During the same period, the price which has been recovered has dropped from Is. 7·1d. to ls. 5·3d. per hoppus foot. Does not that reveal a situation which requires my right Friend's careful consideration?

The discrepancies in this estimate amount to £600,000 in all. They came about through an increase of £500,000 on wages and salaries, which could not be envisaged at the time that the estimate was put in and a discrepancy of £100,000 out of the total estimate of £2½ million on the likely receipts for the sale of timber during the current year. Since, obviously, the movement of market prices must have some effect on the total sum of money derived from sales, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that that was not a bad estimate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Covent Garden Market Authority has made any recommendation about the site of a new market; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The Authority has not yet received the complete report from the firm of consultants it commissioned to advise on the siting of the market. It will then wish to study it and discuss the matter with the interests affected.

Is it not a fact that the firm of consultants employed by the Authority is likely to recommend sites other than the present site of the Covent Garden Market? If one of its recommendations is accepted, will not amending legislation be required, which would have been avoided if the Amendment which I tabled when the Bill was considered had been accepted?

When the Covent Garden Market Bill was going through the House I said—and it was said in another place, I think—that if the Covent Garden Market Authority decided, after giving the matter full consideration, that it wished to put the Market in some place other than in Covent Garden, we would not raise any unreasonable objection to its promoting a Private Bill for that purpose.