I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable Evelyn John St. Loe Strachey, Member for Dundee, West, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action Her Majesty's Government are taking towards implementing Recommendation 365 of 1963 of the Council of Europe dealing with the preservation of ancient buildings.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, without having come to any conclusion, have referred this recommendation to the Council for Cultural Co-operation for its opinion. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have not yet taken action towards implementing the recommendation.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most important recommendation and is one in which European co-operation is manifestly possible and which is unlikely to be vetoed by General de Gaulle? Will he therefore do all that he can to make sure that some action is taken on this important recommendation?

I certainly agree that the recommendation requires very careful study. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the technical and financial problems involved in the proposal are complicated and will require detailed study, but I agree with him that the recommendation is certainly important enough to warrant that detailed study.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the British representative in the General Assembly of the United Nations at its next session to seek there the full implementation of the anti-slavery conventions of 1926 and 1956.

These conventions do not include provisions for full implementation and enforcement. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, however, that States which have not yet done so should be encouraged to accede to the slavery conventions.

Is the hon. Member aware of the widespread international concern on this subject and on the increase in slave traffic and slavery in the last few years? Will he and his right hon. Friend make some definite proposal in the United Nations, where this concern has been increasing? I am sure he will agree that the record of this country on this subject is unparalleled, and I think that our initiative here would be well received.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and accept that there is widespread concern. We took an initiative at the current session of E.C.O.S.O.C. where we made a proposal that the Secretary-General should appoint a special rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive and up-to-date statement of the extent to which slavery still exists in the world today. This was accepted.

In view of the close association between the Government and the Sheik of Muscat, will my hon. Friend try to prevail on that Government to allow such representatives as this Commission would like to send to enter the territory to examine the situation of slavery there?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the duration of British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in Chinese to China and South East Asia; what it will be on completion of the authorised expansion of this service; and what are the weekly hours of British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts per hundred million of population in China as compared with the rest of the world.

British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts to China and South East Asia amount at present to three and a half hours weekly in Mandarin and one and three-quarter hours weekly in Cantonese, making a total of five and a quarter hours in the Chinese languages. There is at present no authorised plan for the expansion of these services, but Chinese is one of the languages likely to benefit when the current scheme for improving British Broadcasting Corporation relay facilities in South East Asia has been completed. The British Broadcasting Corporation now provide forty-five minutes of broadcasting per hundred million of population in China compared with roughly nineteen hours per hundred million in foreign languages to the rest of the world.

Does the Minister note the gross disproportion in coverage between that of China and that of the rest of the world, by a factor of more than 20 to 1? Is there not a very strong case, particularly in view of the independence of Mayasia and the growing importance of China, for a very large increase in the broadcasting hours to China?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for more broadcasts in Chinese, and this we have very much in mind. The difficulty is that it is very largely a question of technical facilities, and plans are under discussion for the increased use of existing facilities and for the provision of new facilities for the improvement of our broadcasting coverage in South East Asia.

What hours are most favourable for broadcasts to China?

I could not answer that without notice.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no one can visit a Communist country nowadays without being aware of the immense importance of these B.B.C. broadcasts? Why have we now lost a place in the quantity of our output, first to the Americans, then to the Russians, then to the Chinese, then to the group of satellite countries, and shortly, we believe, to Egypt? Why do not the Government make a general expansion of these very valuable overseas broadcasts?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are making an expansion of these broadcasts, which I agree with him are valuable. It is worth remembering that we are here making a contribution to the total free world effort of broadcasting to China. We are only one of several Western nations in the field with broadcasts in the Chinese language.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will inform the Icelandic Government that the Aberdeen owners of the trawler "Milwood", now detained in Reykjavik, have offered a bank guarantee to cover the amount of any penalty which may eventually be imposed by the Icelandic authorities on the owners as a consideration for the release of the trawler by the Government of Iceland and her return to her owners in Aberdeen.

The representatives in Reykjavik of the "Milwood's" owners have already put the offer of a guarantee to the Icelandic authorities on several occasions.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that a great injustice is being done by the failure of the British Government to draw the attention of the Icelandic Government to the difference between the two cases—first, the case against the owners of the "Milwood", and, secondly, the case in a quite different court against the captain? Will the Lord Privy Seal draw the attention of the Icelandic Government to the difference between the two cases and the fact that the case against the owners of the "Milwood" can be heard and determined separately without detaining the ship in Reykjavik?

The Icelandic Supreme Court ruled on 26th June that the trawler might be held pending the trial of Skipper Smith on 5th September. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is an unusual case which has been complicated by the fact that Skipper Smith did not return with his ship.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what criteria he applies when approving for publication books and articles, which are in part fact and in part fiction, dealing with the work of the security services, which have been submitted to his Department for examination, details of which matters have been sent to him by the honourable Member for Tynemouth.

The criteria are whether material derived from official sources is involved and, if so, whether publication, assuming that this is in advance of the date provided for in the Public Records Act, 1958, would in our view be likely to damage the national interest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public cannot possibly distinguish between what is truth and what is fiction in a book which is based partly on fiction and partly on truth? Why because the law is an ass should the Foreign Office be described in a book of this kind as being an ass, too? Is it not time that the Foreign Office brought itself up to date and modernised itself? Why should the Foreign Office agree to the publication of a book which is such a bad advertisement for the Foreign Office? For goodness sake, could not the Foreign Office get on with some modernisation?

My hon. Friend knows the difficulties about decisions in individual cases, because she has been in correspondence with me about a number of them. Of course, I am prepared, and my noble Friend is prepared, to consider any individual book which she refers to us, but each case must be decided on its merits. At the same time, I think that it is important to know what the technical position is: it is that this matter is governed by the Public Records Act, 1958,and that when authors send manuscripts what they are really asking for is an assurance that they would be immune from prosecution for violating the Official Secrets Act. Therefore, what they are asking for is a special dispensation. The decision on publication always rests with themselves. If that dispensation is denied, they are not being denied any right. They are being asked for a particular service. We must judge these cases on the criteria I have mentioned.

Has the Lord Privy Seal read the dispatch from The Times Washington correspondent dealing with security matters in which it is said that the impression given about Britain in the minds of people over there is one of baffled confusion? Does not the matter raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. (Dame Irene Ward) exemplify the type of concern where he could take some action which would dispel the confusion existing?

I certainly saw the dispatch from Washington. It did not, in fact, refer to a matter of this kind. As I have said, each individual manuscript must be judged on its merits.

My right hon. Friend is on the wrong book.

It is not for me to judge the merits of the book.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions he has given to his representative at the United Nations on the subject of free and unimpeded passage through the Suez Canal by the vessels of all nations; and what steps he is taking in the United Nations with a view to ensuring that the United Arab Republic, as owners and operators of the canal, comply with the Security Council's resolutions thereon.

There has been no recent occasion for instructions on this subject to be sent to our Permanent Representative in New York. Our views have been frequently expressed in the past and they are well known to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that in December last a Swedish vessel with a cargo of silver coin destined for an Italian port and to British consignees was stopped and the silver confiscated? Is it not high time that vessels were allowed by the U.A.R. to pass through the Canal irrespective of their country of origin and destination, and should not more positive statements be made by us in the United Nations to try to organise this?

At the time of this incident I made a statement to the House of Commons which was absolutely clear, and our views have also been made plain to the U.A.R. authorities. This matter has now been referred to the U.A.R. Prize Court. The insurers are in close touch with the Foreign Office and are being given all possible assistance. The seizure of the coins did not interfere with the passage through the Canal of the ship concerned.

Will the Lord Privy Seal represent to the Government of the U.A.R. that it is a pity to spoil their splendid record on improving the Canal and developing the traffic by failing to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations, to whom they owe so much?

The Government of the U.A.R. knew that we support the Security Council's resolutions, in particular that of 1st September, 1951, and the six principles embodied in the resolution of 13th October, 1956.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further efforts have now been made to negotiate with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the special agreements which are necessary before the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter can operate, bearing in mind that such agreements could only operate if the permanent members of the Security Council were unanimously in favour of their so doing; and what further response there has been from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

None, Sir. The Soviet Union is fully aware of its power of veto in the Security Council. There is no reason to suppose that a reminder of that power would cause the Soviet Union to withdraw its opposition to the conclusion of agreements under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter.

Does my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal realise that the last time I asked this Question he said that he would give further consideration to this aspect of it? Do not Her Majesty's Government think that, if the United Nations are to engage in further peace-keeping operations of this kind, it would be easier for them to have the machinery provided by the Charter at their disposal? Surely it would be worth while to make another effort?

The question of the establishment of such a force in the context of disarmament is due to be discussed in the negotiations at Geneva. We consider that the negotiations in Geneva constitute the best hope for securing the necessary measure of international agreement to set up an international peace-keeping force.

It is not a question of establishing a force. It is a question of bringing into operation the sanctions laid down in Chapter VII of the Charter which have been inoperative for eighteen years owing to the refusal of the Russians to enter into the special agreements. Is no further effort to be made to get them to do so?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and I appreciate that my right hon. Friend said that he would give further consideration to the aspect my hon. Friend raised in a previous Question. Consideration has been given, but we do not think that reminding the Soviet Union of her powers of veto will have the effect my hon. Friend desires.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Soviet Government last referred to the Tsarist debts in discussions with Her Majesty's Government; whether Her Majesty's Government still consider that these debts must be dealt with separately from the Baltic claims; and what measures Her Majesty's Government intends to take to solve the problems of the Tsarist debts and of the distribution of such assets as are held against them by Baring Bros, and other banks.

There has been no discussion of Tsarist claims with the Soviet Government since 1959. It was then agreed that the claims arising as a result of the October Revolution should be left in abeyance pending a settlement of the post-1939 claims. Her Majesty's Government reserved their position as far as the older claims are concerned. In view of this agreement, it would be inappropriate at the present stage for us to take unilateral action as regards Tsarist assets held in this country.

Since the people who are owed this money are getting older all the time and since it is becoming more difficult to trace some of the original claimants, does my hon. Friend not think that it is time, after four years, that we should get together on all these different debts and try to make one big final agreement with the Russians, who at the moment look as though they might be willing to agree?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter has been raised with the Soviet Union on numerous occasions between 1917 and 1959 and they have not been prepared to discuss it. At the moment we are negotiating for the claims after 1939, and I think that it would be wise now to concentrate on those.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if there is not a counter claim against this country for the £100 million that was spent, unauthorised by this House, in financing the counter revolutionary generals? Has not that to be taken into consideration, too?

The Soviet Union have so far not formulated any claim.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the establishment of a United Nations Permanent Peace Force and a world authority in Stage I of a disarmament treaty.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the establishment of peacekeeping forces is in accordance with the proposals in the United States outline disarmament treaty, with whose preparation we were closely associated. These proposals are that preliminary arrangements for such a force should be made in Stage I, and that it should be established and expanded in Stages II and III.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following the deterioration in the Laos situation, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose the reconvening of the Geneva Conference.

No, Sir.

Since Communist China appears to be having a great deal to do with the unsatisfactory situation that exists in Laos at the moment, would it not be advantageous if the Geneva Conference were reassembled and Communist China invited to take her place at the conference table again and face up to the responsibilities she accepted when the Agreements were made at Geneva?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the general situation. In our judgment, machinery exists by which the Geneva Agreements can be implemented. Our task now must be to make this machinery work and not to resort to another conference in order to try to make a fresh settlement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further progress has been made in implementing the Geneva Agreements on Laos.

Latest reports give some hope that political discussions will be renewed between the Prime Minister of Laos and the Pathet Lao leaders. The military situation is meanwhile more or less static.

Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind the fact that the Government's present policy of putting pressure on the Soviet Union in this matter is now serving very little purpose since the Soviet Union has only a limited influence now in this part of the world? Will he also con- sider the suggestion of putting on a more permanen; basis the International Control Commission in the Plain of Jars and giving more definite help to Prince Souvanna Phouma's Government?

The Soviet Foreign Minister is co-Chairman of the Geneva Settlement, and it is right that my noble Friend should remain in close communication with him about this problem. Regarding the work of the International Control Commisison, we have always desired to see it carry out its duties under the Geneva Settlement, and that is why when the co-Chairmen did not agree we ourselves circulated the reports of the Commission which the Commission sent to us. As to supporting the Prime Minister of Laos, that must depend on the point of view of the Laotian Government and the Prime Minister of Laos himself.

While it is obvious that everything must take place in close co operation with the Soviet co-Chairman, are not the British Government putting undue reliance on this method of dealing with the situation?

I do not think that undue reliance is being placed on this method. It is the established machinery in the settlement, and it is right that it should be used.

Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that the Commission is functioning?

Yes, certainly, but not fully, because it is not being allowed into the areas held by the Pathet Lao. The Commisison has produced three reports, which we have circulated to the members of the conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place with France and the United States of America, as signatories of the 1951 Pact, as a prelude to making a joint declaration to the Government of the United Arab Republic that action will be taken to guarantee the frontiers and preserve the independence of all countries in the Middle East which are threatened with aggression from without or subversion from within.

None, Sir. As regards action to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 14th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden).

In view of that reply to which my right hon. Friend refers, would it not be desirable to get a similar endorsement from France in regard to this matter? Would it not also be desirable to make it clear that we are prepared to act as well as talk under the circumstances envisaged in my Question?

If my hon. Friend consults the reply which the Prime Minister gave, he will see that my right hon. Friend said that it was difficult to foresee the exact action one could take in any particular circumstances in the future, but that we would prefer the United Nations to be primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. The United States President made a statement just before that on similar lines, but it must be a matter for the French Government to express their own point of view.

Do we still regard the Tripartite Agreement as being in force?

The views expressed by the Prime Minister in answer to the Question to which I have referred clearly set out the views of Her Majesty's Government.

Were we fully consulted before the American declaration was made and to which, I gather, we have given assent?

We are always in the closest consultation with the United States Administration.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the purpose of the proposed official visit to Moscow of the Lord President of the Council.

The Lord President of the Council and Mr. Harriman begin their talks with Soviet representatives in Moscow today. I know that the whole House will wish them success.

On the purpose of the visit, I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 3rd July and to the Answers which he gave to Questions on 9th and 11th July.

While, obviously, hon. Members on both sides of the House wish the Lord President the greatest possible success on this occasion and while any more specific supplementary question would be inappropriate today, could the Lord Privy Seal simply indicate that the Government are aware that this is a unique psychological opportunity to achieve an agreement? Could the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that the Lord President is in a flexible situation from the point of view of the negotiations?

The Prime Minister explained our attitude towards this matter. We want Mr. Khrushchev to know exactly what the position is and we want to achieve an agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will explain the circumstances in which the application for a passport for Robert Macdonald of 24, Dundee Road, Wyke Regis, Weymouth, was kept for some weeks in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There was good reason to believe that the signature on Mr. Macdonald's application form purporting to be that of his father was not authentic. The case was therefore referred in the normal way to the local police authorities for enquiry and subsequently, on receipt of the police report, to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether proceedings should be instituted against the applicant under Section36 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. Mr. Macdonald has since been interviewed and the passport issued to him.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this whole business more carefully? Is he aware that as far as I can make out there was no question of this young man attempting to simulate his father's signature? I understand that after answering the questions correctly he wrote his own signature, crossed it out and then wrote his father's? The father was written to and asked to confirm that his consent had been given and immediately and promptly gave it. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that passing this case to the Director of Public Prosecutions without informing the lad or his father was ham-fisted, to say the least, and had consequences which prevented the boy from going on a trip which he was hoping to go on?

I cannot agree with the hon. Member. This was a clear case of a young man forging another signature. It was in due course passed to the police for inquiries to be made. The police took information from him and, therefore, that information then had to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a prosecution should be instituted. The Director considered this matter but decided that a severe caution to the boy was appropriate. Therefore, he was not prosecuted and we then gave him a passport.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now publish an account of the scientific and other factors which determine the number of on-site inspections thought necessary by Her Majesty's Government as part of a test ban agreement.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 29th May.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 29th May he told me that the data were not readily presented in the form of a White Paper and that the inference which I drew from that—the inference which anyone would have drawn—was that they were present able in some other form? This is what I am now seeking; that the data should be presented in a form which the right hon. Gentleman may decide.

I do not think that that was a justifiable inference from my reply. I explained that there were a number of reasons why this information could not readily be published. I explained that other factors came into it as well as the scientific data which is available in trying to reach a test ban agreement. As we are now negotiating a test ban agreement, it might be best if we leave the matter there and see what happens.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent communications he has had with the Government of the Somali Republic about the Somali Region of Kenya and about the resumption of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the Republic.

A Note from the Somali Government about the Northern Frontier District of Kenya has been received by Her Majesty's Government through the Protecting Power, and is under consideration. There has been no communication about the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Somali Republic.

While it is to be hoped that this problem may be solved within the context of the East African Federation, would not my hon. Friend agree that the British Government have a special responsibility, still being the sovereign Power, and also because a large majority of the inhabitants have indicated their wish to join the Somali Republic?

We certainly agree that we have a responsibility up to the time of independence. We hope that agreement will be reached between all parties concerned before the date set for independence.

Will Her Majesty's Government make clear to the Government of Kenya how undesirable it is to have in the area of any country a "Sudetenland" capable of giving trouble in the future?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the proposal of the Argentine Government to make discriminatory payments to Argentine meat producers, which would prejudice the position of British companies operating in the Argentine; and if he will make representations to the Argentine Government to prevent this proposal being carried out.

I am aware that the Argentine Government propose to allow Argentine concerns access to working capital from a fund to which both Argentine and foreign companies in the meat trade have to contribute. British companies would suffer if this proposal were put into effect. Representations have been made to the Argentine Government pointing out the discriminatory nature of their proposal and expressing our concern.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it should be made abundantly clear to the Argentine Government that any such discrimination against British companies operating in the Argentine can only result in Argentine meat producers and meat product companies being seriously prejudiced in United Kingdom markets today; and that they cannot expect to enjoy the freedom they have had in the past if they so discriminate against British companies operating in the Argentine?

I hope that the representations already made will lead to the desired result.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this Argentine Government is the same Government to which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has, as a result of the recent agreement, handed to the Argentine Government the right to allocate meat to British firms in this country as the Argentine Government wish? Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture as to whether it is not much better that the distribution of meat in this country should be done in this country and not done by the Argentine Government?

No, Sir. I was not aware of that, but I will accept it from my hon. Friend and will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from British trade unions asking for observers from the British Embassy in Madrid to attend political trials in Spain, as was previously done; and what replies he has sent.

A number of trade union branches have raised this matter with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. They have been referred to my Answer to the hon. Gentleman on 8th April.

Why are the British Government less concerned than the American Government about seeing what goes on at these trials, particularly as the presence of foreign observers is considered helpful to justice?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not less concerned than the Americans to find out what goes on at these trials, but we find that because the Press are admitted to the trials we have full information about what goes on. As to whether our presence there could influence the course of justice, I would suggest that it would be improper for us to send an observer to the trial of a citizen of a foreign country with that object. We have no standing to intervene in the judicial processes in another country where no British interests are directly involved.

While it may be regrettable that political trials should take place anywhere, can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal will not discriminate in his representations of the nature indicated in the Question between countries either of the East or of the West?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal which Commonwealth countries have been consulted on the recent negotiations he has had with members of the European Economic Community.

There have been no recent negotiations with members of the European Economic Community other than those in connection with the European Economic Community's proposal for the suspension of tariffs on tea and tropical hardwoods. The fullest contact has been maintained with those Commonwealth countries concerned at all stages of these negotiations.

Having failed to persuade certain elements in the E.E.C. to accept the United Kingdom as a member of the Community, is the right hon. Gentleman now trying to get in by the back door? As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously a very intelligent person, though it is not always apparent, why does he not abandon this project for the time being?

I was prevented by a certain element, and there is no question of going in by the back door. These arrangements were first negotiated in Brussels and, at the request of Commonwealth countries, we had to return to the Community with the request that the tariffs on tea—which particularly affects India, Pakistan and Ceylon—and hardwoods—which affect, particularly, Nigeria and Tanganyika—should be removed. Therefore, it was obviously right that we should negotiate with the Community to that effect, and I am glad that the negotiation has been successful.

In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to include in the Official Report the conclusions reached as a result of the contacts?

Yes, Sir. I will certainly report them to the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consideration is being given to using Malta as a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation already enjoys military facilities in Malta, which is the location of the Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, Armed Forces, Mediterranean.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently had the oppor- tunity of confirming that both the major parties in Malta are just as vigorously opposed to the present fortress economy established by the British as they would be to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation creating another economy of that type? In view of the fact that if N.A.T.O. wants a base for military or nuclear purposes there is a N.A.T.O. country to the north of Malta with a good many totally uninhabited islands, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that any one of these would be a better place than Malta?

The plain fact is that there is a N.A.T.O. base in Malta at this moment, and what is also, I would have thought, quire clear is that the Maltese Administration welcomes the use of Malta by British forces because of the revenue that this brings to the island. Indeed, whenever there has been a proposal, because of reductions in defence expenditure, to reduce the base in Malta, it has always been received with great opposition by those in question.

While Malta may have welcomed the British while the troops were there, now that the troops are being withdrawn and nothing apparently is taking their place from Britain, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome is not so strong?

That is not to say nothing is taking their place, but that is a matter for the Colonial Secretary. The whole House knows what the Government have done to help Malta in this situation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that Egypt, despite international engagements to the contrary, has used poison gas against Yemeni non-combatants; what action is being taken through the United Nations or other channels; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in arranging for medical and other aid to be provided to the victims.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has through the United Nations of the use of mustard or poison gas in the recent operations in the Yemen; by whom it was used; and what steps are being taken by the United Nations to bring medicinal relief to the victims and to put an end to such activities.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning the use by United Arab Republic forces in North Yemen of weapons proscribed by the United Nations and the International Geneva Convention in an area now under United Nations supervision; and if he will make a statement

(2) what investigations the United Nations have now made into the use of weapons proscribed by the United Nations and the International Geneva Convention in North Yemen, an area at present under United Nations supervision.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will cause to be raised in the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation the need for a committee to be set up to inquire into the use of toxic gas on villages of the Yemen and for the necessary steps to be taken to prevent a repetition of these attacks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has now received from the United Nations about the use of any type of gas in the Yemen by Egyptian forces; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he now has had from the United Nations about the use of poison gas in an attack on a village in the Yemen.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he has taken in the United Nations to secure an investigation by the United Nations into allegations that United Arab Republic forces in the Yemen have used poison gases and napalm bombs against the people of the Yemen.

On 9th July we drew the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to a circumstantial account in the Daily Telegraph on 8th July of the use of some type of gas bomb by United Arab Republic forces in the Yemen. U Thant had already instructed the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission to investigate such accounts, but so far as I am aware their report has not yet been received.

There is also a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the area with instructions to report on the needs of the wounded. Our Ambassador in Cairo has told the Egyptian Government of the extreme seriousness with which Her Majesty's Government would regard such reports if found to be true.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask him whether it is not important that the Foreign Office, as well as an English newspaper, should have prompt information about these terrible events? Is not this one more reason why there should still be a British Chargé ďAffaires with the Iman's Government? May we be assured that there will be the most vigorous international action on the part of Her Majesty's Government so that people do not get the idea that what the League of Nations condemned in Mussolini is condoned in Nasser?

As I explained to the House, we think it better to use the channel of communication with the Iman's representative in London for our information. The best thing surely in the circumstances is that the United Nations, which has observers on the spot, should report as soon as possible and as fully as possible on this incident. I think that the House would agree that we have taken all possible action in these circumstances.

If the people concerned get away with it and they cheat, does it not mean that in any future war the whole thing will spread and be just as bad as a nuclear war?

We ourselves have signed the Geneva Convention on this, which explains our point of view.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Department of the United States Secretary of State has also sent observers there and they have confirmed that these weapons have not been used at all? Is he aware that the report in the Daily Telegraph does not mention gas; it mentions poison gas? Why is it that only the Daily Telegraph has this report?

A scoop.

Neither of these questions affects the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and I certainly cannot answer them.

Has my right hon. Friend any information direct to the Foreign Office apart from the report in the Daily Telegraph? Independently of that, will he press the United Nations for a very early report on this matter and not allow the thing to get gradually lost in the mist of time?

I understand that the United Nations Secretary-General wishes to have an early report about it because of his concern about the matter. We have received certain information and we shall make it available to the United Nations if required.

While agreeing that we must reserve judgment until we have received the United Nations report and that we must not bandy charges, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say when we are likely to receive that report?

We have been unable to find that out. I made inquiries before coming to the House as to when the report would be received, but we have no knowledge of it yet.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Egyptian Government have denied the allegations but that it is clearly in their interests as well as those of the people of the Yemen that the facts should be clearly established by an impartial authority? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in addition to pressing for an early report by the United Nations, also inform the House fully of information he receives as soon as he gets it?

I understand that the U.A.R. has stated that these were napalm bombs and not gas bombs. I will see that the House has the earliest opportunity of hearing of the report we receive.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the United Nations has all the transport required for the investigation, including aircraft and possibly helicopters, and has the advice of experts, including a medical team?

I understand that the Secretary-General is satisfied that the observer team can carry out this investigation. If they required any further facilities we would certainly urge that they should receive them.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that every effort will be made to ensure that this report will be received as soon as possible and that if it is confirmed—as we hope it will not—that these diabolical weapons have been used by Egypt every effort will be made to ensure that the United Nations takes the strongest possible action?

The latter part would appear to be on a hypothetical basis.

asked the Lord Privy Seal on how many occasions in the last 10 years the Foreign Office has asked British newspapers to find employment for ex-officials of that Department.

Full records are not kept of approaches made by the Foreign Office to outside employers on behalf of former employees. But the Foreign Office always tries to help former members of the Service, who have retired or resigned, to find jobs for which they appear to be suitably qualified.

Is it not most unusual for the Foreign Office to seek employment for an ex-official of the Department who has beer at one time or another under suspicion, to put it no higher than that? Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House who was the Foreign Office official who approached the Observer in order to try to obtain employment for Mr. Philby?

I dealt last week with the case which the right hon. Gentleman is raising. As for the general matters to which his Question refers, I should have thought that it was not unusual but only the work of any good employer to try to help people in those circumstances.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if we are to have this question perpetually from the other side of the House, he could please inform me on whose authority Burgess became established in the Foreign Office at the time of the Labour Government?

That question is again hypothetical.

On a point of order. It is not hypothetical at all.

I am sorry to differ from the hon. Lady, as at all times, but a proposition beginning, "If we are to have this question—"appears to me to be hypothetical.

The right hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he dealt with one aspect of my Question last week, but he did not tell the House who was the Foreign Office official who approached the Observer to obtain employment for Mr. Philby. Can we now be informed?

No, Sir. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to tell the House of Commons the name of a particular official dealing with matters in the Foreign Office. This was dealt with through the usual channels.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been submitted by the British representatives at the current meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in connection with the United Nations Development Decade.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals are being submitted by Her Majesty's Government at the current conference of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in Geneva in order to promote the objectives of the United Nations Development Decade.

None, Sir. The two reports on the Decade which the Secretary-General has prepared in consultation with member Governments contain comprehensive proposals covering the whole field of development. What is needed now is a careful assessment of those proposals and action to implement them as speedily and as effectively as practicable.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for implementing these proposals of the Secretary-General? Is it not a fact that since the General Assembly passed a resolution in 1961 establishing the United Nations Development Decade virtually nothing had been done of practical consequence?

I do not agree with that at all. I suggest that the hon. Member reads the reports of the Secretary-General. At the moment our delegation at the Economic and Social Council are dealing with these matters. Their main objective will be to ensure that the considerable financial, material and human resources which are being made available through the United Nations are being used in the most efficient and effective way possible to help developing countries.

How far do these reports deal with the need to expand in 1964 the programme of technical assistance and the work of the Special Fund, which are falling behind the objectives originally set out in the Development Decade? If these efforts are falling behind, will Her Majesty's Government agree to making a greater contribution to these programmes along with other countries?

The United Kingdom contribution for 1963 to the two United Nations voluntary funds, the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the Special Fund, will increase by 25 per cent. to a total of 10 million dollars. We are the largest contributor after the United States.

Is not ten million dollars a ludicrously small sum for a project which is immensely in the interest of the British Commonwealth?

This is only part of the assistance which we give to underdeveloped countries, which is considerable.

Nevertheless, will Her Majesty's Government be good enough to review how much they give to assist the United Nations in this programme?

The matter comes up for review in the autumn.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will cause to be raised in the Security Council, as a threat to world peace, the activities of espionage agents throughout the world, with a view to establishing an international convention to outlaw their activities.

No. Sir.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister's reply is no longer and gives no more information than was given in 1956, in view of the fact that the major Powers in U.N.O. conduct espionage on a grand scale which harms international relationships, why cannot action be taken at the Security Council at least to try to get this matter discussed?

I think the main reason is because of the obvious difficulty of enforcing such an agreement.

Would my right hon. Friend not consider this matter? Would it not have the effect of stimulating the secret service to become really secret?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is an essential part of international diplomacy, and what the House would really wish would be to see it changed so that we caught more of other people's agents and they caught fewer of ours?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has adequate information on which to make a judgment on this matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, for how long Her Majesty's Government propose to maintain British jurisdiction in certain States in the Persian Gulf.

I cannot say. But Her Majesty's Government look forward to the time when the development of satisfactory legal and judicial systems in the Persian Gulf States will justify the relinquishment of British jurisdiction, as it has already been relinquished in Kuwait.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are more likely to be able to maintain our interest in the Gulf, which is perfectly legitimate and of great value to the people there, if we bring our relationships with those States a little more up to date, and if we do it a little more quickly than we are doing now? What reason is there for maintaining British jurisdiction in all these States when other judicial processes are available there?

We are most anxious that all the arrangements which we have with the Gulf States should be up to date, and indeed we give the lead in this respect. The reason for maintaining our jurisdiction is that the rulers themselves are still in the process of improving and establishing their jurisdiction. We will give them every assistance in doing that, and as soon as it is completed we will be ready to relinquish our jurisdiction.

What steps are the Government taking to ensure the administration of these States? Are we taking steps to ensure that the slave trade in Muscat and Oman is kept down?

My hon. Friend has just answered a Question about that. We have no responsibility for the internal affairs of these States. Our responsibility is for their external protection.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, whether he is aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations has recommended that the meetings of the United Nations Committees on Population, Statistical, Human Rights, and the Social Commission and Status of Women Commission shall not take place in 1964; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government intend to give the Secretary-General's recommendation their full support.

Does not my hon. Friend think this is a very retrograde step? Does he not think it is a pity that some of these committees should not be amalgamated if there is going to be too much work to have them individually staffed? If they are going to miss one year, can we be certain that they will start again in 1965?

I would not agree that this is a retrograde step. There are part of wider proposals which were put forward by the Secretary-General with the object of relieving the excessive burden placed on the Secretariat by the increasingly congested programme of conferences and meetings on economic and social matters.

Will my hon. Friend see that we take the matter up to ensure that these committees do meet in 1965?

Certainly I will take that matter up. So far as the present proposals are concerned, we have already announced that we will give the Secretary-General our full support.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will draw the attention of the Security Council, under Article 34 of the Charter, to the latest action of the United States of America against Cuba under the United States Trading With the Enemy Act, together with the United States boycott, violations of Cuban air-space and other acts contrary to international law and the obligations of the United Nations Charter, as a threat to peace.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Government of the United States of America has instituted blocking controls with respect to Cuba, in order to contribute more effectively to her economic isolation; and whether he will take the steps necessary to bring this situation to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly under Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the United Nations as a threat to peace.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will bring to the attention of the Security Council or of a special meeting of the General Assembly the situation created by the action of the United States of America in imposing a total economic blockade of Cuba and of the assets of Cuban nationals loyal to the Government of Cuba, as a situation which might lead to international friction under the terms of Article 34.

Her Majesty's Government are aware of the action taken by the United States Government. They do not consider it constitutes any threat to peace.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to treat Cuba as an enemy to be boycotted and threatened with aggression constitutes a threat to peace? Will he dispel the growing impression that Her Majesty's Government treat the Charter as a scrap of paper in their subservience to American aggression and bullying?

Certainly not. This action was taken as part of the arrangements requested by the Organisation of American States.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is just as bloody-minded to try to destroy a people by economic means as it is by the military method? We ourselves have said so when we were subjected to it. In view of the fact that the wise men are now gathering in the East to try to come to a composition on the use of the military method, would not the right hon. Gentleman urge similar tolerance amongst our friends in the West?

This is a matter for the United States Administration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Security Council authorised the Organisation of American States to take economic sanction against Cuba? Secondly, is this not in any case an act of incredible political folly at a time when Mr. Khrushchev is having very delicate negotiations with both his Eastern and Western friends?

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would refer this matter to the Security Council. I have given the reason why we are not prepared to do that.

If we are talking about breaking the Charter, can my right hon. Friend inform the House how often the Soviet Union has used the veto compared with America or this country?

If my hon. Friend will give me notice I will tell him the exact number of times.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a good policy to try to starve the Cubans into accepting the policy which the Americans desire?

This action which has been taken by the United States Government is the blocking of accounts inside the United States.

No, it is not.

Does the Lord Privy Seal recall that when Stalin did this to Yugoslavia we protested in the strongest possible manner and took action to help Marshal Tito? Will he consult the Law Officers and see whether their opinion is that the action now taken is in accordance with the obligations of the Charter?

We have naturally considered this matter, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to take further legal advice, I will certainly consider that.

asked the-Lord Privy Seal if he will now propose to other Governments concerned the organisation of an embargo on arms supplies to the Middle East as a means of reducing tension and attempting to negotiate peace settlements.

Her Majesty's Government endeavour to maintain a balance of arms in this area and to prevent an arms race from developing; moreover, Her Majesty's Government would consider with the greatest care any practicable scheme for promoting peace and stability in the area. But, so long as present tensions persist, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would produce useful results.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary for some Government to take the initiative in this matter? How can one Government maintain a balance of arms supplies in the area? What would be beneficial to all concerned would be a stoppage of arms supplies completely and an end to competitive arms trafficking. Would not the right hon. Gentleman take an initiative with other Governments who supply arms to try to control the business and stop arms trafficking?

I said that we were endeavouring to maintain a balance of arms in this area. This we do by con- sultation with other countries. We are already finding this a difficult thing to achieve. At the same time, I do not think there in any point in trying to take the initiative to stop all arms supplies to the area.

Would it not be possible at least to stop all nuclear supplies to the area? For example, is it proposed at Moscow to take a positive initiative to try to prevent nuclear weapons being given to Governments in the Middle East?

I have already defined the terms of the discussions at Moscow. So far as nuclear arms are concerned, it has been suggested that there are already nuclear arms in certain countries in the Middle East.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not say that he will take the initiative in these discussions to propose an agreement at any rate, to ensure that no nuclear weapons are supplied to the countries of the Middle East? Would he not take that initiative?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the present discussions in Moscow, their scope has already been defined. If he is referring to some fresh initiative on nuclear weapons, I have explained that we are endeavouring with other countries to maintain a balance and limit supplies going to the Middle East. At the same time, there are some indications that nuclear weapons may already be there.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit about this information of nuclear weapons having already arrived in the Middle East? On what does he base this?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give information on that particular point.