asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests have been made under the Anglo-Colombian Treaty of Friendship to the Government of Colombia about the widespread persecution of British Protestant Christians in that country.

Her Majesty's Government have made no protest to the Colombian Government under the Anglo-Colombian Treaty as there has been no breach of that Treaty.

Why not? Is the Minister not aware that during recent years therehave been 700 cases of religious persecution in Colombia, that 52 Protestants have been killed, 42 Protestant churches destroyed by fire and 110 Protestant primary schools closed? Are not these grounds for the most vigorous representations under the Treaty?

As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, Article 15 of the Anglo-Colombian Treaty assures British subjects freedom of conscience and freedom of private worship. It does not confer upon British Protestants the right to seek converts in Colombia. As far as I am aware, all these attacks have not been on British subjects.

Has not the Joint Under-Secretary of State made any inquiries to find out whether these allegations are true? Can he confirm or deny the truth of the allegations?

I do not think they are concerned with the Anglo-Colombian Treaty of Friendship, to which this Question refers.

Has not my hon. Friend had extensive communications and documentation on this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory)? In view of the intolerable persecution which is taking place, will he not make it clear to the Colombian Government that this form of persecution is viewed with acute disfavour by Her Majesty's Government and may seriously impair relations?

As I have informed the House, there are no grounds under the Treaty for taking action.

Is Colombia a party to the Declaration of Human Rights? Cannot this matter be raised at theUnited Nations? Will Her Majesty's Government take steps to do that?

I suggest that that would be a proper place for this question.

While I fully appreciate that we should do everything possible to stop persecution in every part of the world and of any form of religion, is it not quite possible that much of this so-called persecution is entirely due to the people mentioned taking part in some political isues in that country? If not, why has not the Archbishop of Canterbury made any public protest?

The Minister is not responsible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. The whole question is hypothetical.