asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in his discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the possibility of establishing uniform rates of pay and allowances for national contingents serving in United Nations peace-keeping forces.

The British delegation in New York have discussed this question with the United Nations Secretariat. The Secretariat has pointed out to us that the policy of establishing uniform rates of pay and allowances would inevitably lead to a levelling up of the pay and allowances of all contingents, as at present fixed by their Governments, to that of the highest-paid contingent. If the cost of this were to be borne by United Nations funds this would clearly add very considerably to the cost of United Nations peace-keeping operations. It would not seem to be a practical proposition in the present state of United Nations finances.

While appreciating those difficulties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that if these secondary problems, which often cause disproportionate irritation, could be dealt with, it might make it easier to build up gradually a regular peacekeeping force on a voluntary basis, perhaps individually as well as nationally, instead of having to throw contingents together ad hoc every time?

I agree with the hon. Member that these are very important considerations for the future, but at present there are these difficulties, and I think he appreciates them. I do not think that they can be overcome at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to the establishment of a permanent United Nations force; and what reply he has sent to them.

My right hon. Friend has received from the Soviet Ambassador a copy of a Soviet Government Memorandum on measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in the safeguarding of international peace and security. This Memorandum has been circulated at the United Nations at the request of the Soviet representative as document S/5811. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The Soviet representative in New York has told his British and American colleagues that the Memorandum is a response to the proposals which they put to him in March. These were outlined to the House in my reply to the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 13th April.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Khrushchev has increasingly been showing a genuine desire for an East-West detente, and is not this proposal further evidence of it? Therefore, will the Foreign Secretary, during his talks in Moscow, show Mr. Khrushchev that we in this country are in favour of such a proposal and welcome the Soviet conversion to it, doing everything in his power to see that agreement is reached along these lines?

I would prefer not to go into the merits of this proposal until my right hon. Friend had had a chance to discuss the matter with the Soviet Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that, at the spring meeting this year of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, proposals were agreed to by the Soviet Union representative which were very much in line with those which have now been circulated in New York? Does he agree that this is an immense advance on anything hitherto agreed by the Soviets, and will the right hon. Gentleman now press for a permanent United Nations force with a permanent staff for forward planning at the United Nations?

I assure the House that we welcome Soviet interest in this important subject and hope that the Soviet Government will be prepared to elucidate further their own ideas and discuss the ideas which other member States have put forward in recent months in the light of experience of United Nations peace-keeping activities to date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures giving the quarterly percentage rise and fall in the costs of administering the Foreign Services, taking January, 1952, as 100.

No, Sir. The separation of administrative costs from the other costs of the Foreign Service would be unduly expensive of time and effort. Moreover, any comparison of costs would be misleading in view of the changes in the load and organisation of the Foreign Service since 1952.

Will the hon. Gentleman try to give some information without going to too much cost or trouble? I am anxious to find to what extent the Foreign Office has saved money since the Government came to power, because this was one of the promises that they made during the last election. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I should like to put to my constituents during the election period either proof that the Government have kept their promise or, as I suspect, proof that this is another broken promise?

The hon. Member will remember that I told him on 13th April that, apart from anything else, we have entered into diplomatic relations with no fewer than 22 additional countries since 1952 and the increase in staff in the Foreign Office has been only 39. I think that this is no mean achievement for a public Department.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what specific administrative economies have been carried out following the Plowden Report on Representational Services Overseas? In particular, have the Government accepted the recommendation that heads of missions should report annually on the work of their missions?

Close attention is being paid to that part of the Plowden Report and every effort will be made to make every possible economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will name the countries with whom Her Majesty's Government are currently negotiating for the sale of British military arms and equipment;

There are certain countries, such as those of the Soviet bloc, Far Eastern Communist countries, and Cuba, to whom it is our policy not to supply arms. Requests from other countries are considered in the light of their political, economic and strategic implications. It is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to name the countries with whom they are negotiating the sale of arms and military equipment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Office should not make clear the names of the countries to which the Government have no intention of supplying arms and the names of the countries to which they have supplied arms, without necessarily giving the amounts provided, say in the last five years? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain further what are the most important principles to which the Government adhere when they are negotiating such sales? Are they political considerations or considerations as to what the arms are likely to be used for, or are they purely commercial considerations?

I gave in my original Answer a description of the countries—the Soviet bloc, Far Eastern Communist countries, and so forth—to which we do not supply arms. It must, therefore, be derived that the other countries are possible countries to which we should supply arms. When we consider the export of arms we take account of any likelihood of their being re-exported or needed for aggression, or for the subversion of other countries or against British or Commonwealth forces.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the frigates for India? Can he confirm or deny that the Indian High Commissioner here has made frequent representations to himself, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and that the Prime Minister should have known about this since he was involved in it? Was it because of British representations that the Indians broke off negotiations with Sweden for the supply of these frigates? Was it because it was represented to them by our Government that this would not be showing sufficient gratitude for the help which we gave India against China?

That is a question which will have to be put down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what policy was supported by the United Kingdom representative at the recent consideration by the United Nations of a resolution with regard to the export to South Africa of spare parts for vehicles, which would cover Saracen armoured cars.

In his explanation of our vote in favour of the Security Council resolution of 18th June, the United Kingdom representative referred to paragraph 12 of the Resolution which deals with the supply of arms to South Africa. He repeated that Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as previously stated, that is not to export to South Africa arms which would enable the policy of apartheid to be enforced. As regards Saracen armoured cars, I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19th December.

Is not the attitude of Great Britain in this matter one of pure casuistry? Did not the resolution of 18th June, for which we voted, call on member States to stop the export not only of arms but of materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms in South Africa? And did we not, as the Foreign Secretary said, pledge that we would stop the export of arms which would enable apartheid to be enforced? Are we not exporting spare parts for Saracen armoured cars at this moment? Are we not, therefore, showing a complete reluctance to do anything practical against apartheid?

As the Prime Minister said on 19th December, we supply parts for Saracens under the existing contracts but we intend to make no new contracts. All applications for spares are carefully scrutinised in the light of our declared policy.

Are we seriously to take it that a commercial arms contract is regarded as more binding than United Nations resolutions for which we voted?

What we must take is that the policy at present being carried out is as stated by the Prime Minister and as I have repeated it here.

Does not the export of spare parts for Saracens show that the Government are sending munitions which could be used for the suppression of civil disorder in South Africa? Have the Government abandoned altogether their position that we send such arms as we send to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement, and do they now rest solely on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter? If they do, it is very hard to square that policy with our vote at the United Nations.

There was an explanation of our vote at the United Nations on which I have given a full Answer in reply to the original Question. As for the Saracens, we do not intend to make any new contracts. We are simply fulfilling the existing contracts. As I added, all applications for spares are carefully scrutinised in the light of our policy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this contract will go on under which we are supplying spare parts?

I could not give that information without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution has been pledged by Her Majesty's Government to the proposed United Nations Training and Research Institute; whether the contribution from this country will be on an annual basis; and if he will make a statement.

Subject to certain conditions, Her Majesty's Government have pledged to the proposed Institute a sum of $500,000 to cover the first five or six years of the Institute's operations. This pledge is the largest so far made by any Government and the Secretary-General of the United Nations has acknowledged it gratefully.

While welcoming that statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a departure from previous Government decisions not to contribute to endowment funds of this kind? If this new policy is to become the rule, would the Government reconsider their refusal to contribute to the endowment fund of the Institute of Labour Studies in Geneva? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that with the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that 43 countries have contributed to that fund but so far we have refused to do so?

I do not think that it is a departure from previous policy. It is a continuation of our policy to support as best we can, as indeed we do, the various activities of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has recently received from other Governments about the British bases in Cyprus.

None, Sir.

Would it nevertheless not be wise to recognise that sovereign bases in foreign countries have become an untenable anachronism? If it is the Government's view that some useful United Kingdom purpose is served by having those facilities in this area, would it not be wise to negotiate for them to be freely provided by our allies in the Eastern Mediterranean?

We have had no representations from the Government of Cyprus or the other Governments concerned or from the United Nations. This does not come within the purview of the United Nations mediator. As these bases are valuable to us, I suggest that we go on as before.

Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on whether he thinks that the American bases in the United Kingdom are an "untenable anachronism"?

They are not sovereign bases.

Although in the passage of time it may be found desirable to remove the bases from Cyprus, may we have an assurance—at any rate may I have an assurance—that we shall not allow ourselves to be pushed out by Archbishop Makarios and that if we decide to go out we shall go out as a result of negotiations?

Yes, Sir, I can give that as an unqualified assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

The Conference reconvened on 9th June, after a recess. During its Tuesday meetings on general and complete disarmament, it has continued to discuss the reduction of nuclear delivery vehicles with particular attention to the possibility of forming a Working Group for technical consideration of this subject. The Thursday meetings have been devoted to collateral and partial measures. The agenda now agreed between the United States and Soviet Co-Chairmen provides for alternate discussion of items proposed by the two sides.

How long does the hon. Gentleman expect the discussions to go on? They have been going on for about 12 years. Is there any possibility of narrowing the discussions on general disarmament with a view to securing a next-step agreement covering more limited objectives, such as the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons, the bonfire of bombers to which President Johnson attaches so much importance, and the freeze of nuclear strategic vehicles to which the Minister has referred?

I do not think that it would be right to expect quick successes at Geneva. One must look for serious and detailed work rather than spectacular results. As to the collateral measures which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, we discuss these at one meeting every week and we certainly hope that we shall be able to reach an agreement on one of them. There is a general feeling, I believe, in Geneva at the moment that the prospects are good.

The Minister said that we must not expect rapid results. Does he reflect that hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent every year on military research which improves the weapons and makes them more dangerous and disarmament more difficult? Has any progress been made in this matter of the freeze? What has been the Government's attitude towards it?

The United States representative at Geneva has given the conference further explanations of this very complicated subject, the freeze, and he has received Her Majesty's Government's support throughout.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for a settlement of the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia, through the medium of the Government of Thailand, in view of the relevance of these negotiations to British commitments in the area concerned.

The Government of Thailand have already played a helpful part in facilitating contacts between Indonesia and Malaysia, and I have seen Press reports that the Thai Foreign Minister made new proposals for a settlement to the Indonesian Foreign Minister when the latter visited Bangkok on 8th and 9th July. I understand that Dr. Subandrio has since, however, expressed the view that negotiations are, for the moment, impossible.

Whatever is the compelling military situation, is not the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concerned mostly with the political settlement which must come at some point? Is he aware that the Tunku, the Prime Minister of Malaya, has been in America and has seen officials at the United States, U Thant and the Afro-Asian group of the United Nations? Would he be prepared to support a proposal that an Afro-Asian mission of good will be sent to Indonesia and Malaya to try to seek a military solution to this problem?

When in the Far East I did my best to encourage the Tokyo meeting to take place. Unfortunately, that meeting was not successful. With the approval of the Tunku, I would certainly be ready to submit any plan for consideration provided that it respects the independence and integrity of Malaysia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government's pledged support for the United States Government's policy in South Vietnam includes support for the threat of military action against the Chinese People's Republic made by the United States Government in respect of events in that area.

Hon. Members will have noted that President Johnson reiterated at his Press Conference on 24th July that the United States seeks no wider war.

Is it not a fact that the American Under-Secretary of State, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, said the other day that the United States did not exclude the idea of extending the war to North Vietnam and that since then the Prime Minister of South Vietnam and the Commander-in-Chief of the South Vietnam Air Force, both of whom are literally in American pay and under American orders, have both said that they intended to attack North Vietnam and have already dropped sabotage squads in North Vietnam? In the circumstances, will not the Foreign Secretary at least join with General de Gaulle and the Soviet Government in demanding a reconvening of the 14-Power Conference at Geneva?

I do not think that the conditions for a conference are as yet satisfied, partly because at least one nation involved—namely, South Vietnam —would not attend. When I go to Moscow—by tomorrow—however, I hope to have conversations with the Soviet Government on this point, and I will bear in mind what is said in this House.

I am sure that everyone will welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about discussing the whole question of South-East Asia when he is in Moscow. Will he also recall that Mr. Bundy said that neutralisation might on certain terms be acceptable for both North and South Vietnam?

Yes. I think that that depends upon the terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusions were reached on the situation in Laos at the recent Vientiane Conference of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Canada, India, South Vietnam and Thailand.

Those taking part agreed that the deteriorating military situation in Laos presented a grave threat to the peace of South-East Asia. They unanimously agreed to call on the Co-Chairmen, in the way each thought appropriate, to do everything in their power to urge all parties concerned to bring about an immediate cease-fire throughout the Kingdom, and to withdraw all forces to the positions which they held before the recent fighting, the cease-fire and withdrawal to be controlled and verified by the International Control Commission. A copy of the full Communiqué issued at the end of the talks is in the Library.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received this weekend a message from Mr. Khrushchev, as one of the Co-Chairmen, in which he indicated that he may withdraw from the Co-Chairmanship and urged that there should be a 14-Power Conference on this matter? When the right hon. Gentleman goes to Moscow, will he do his utmost to secure a resumption of the Geneva Conference, which alone could be a solution of these problems?

Yes, Sir. We had hoped that the Polish proposals, which I was discussing up to Saturday evening, would be a preliminary, perhaps, to a wider conference. It now appears that the Soviet Government have certain definite views about an immediate wider conference, and it is precisely this problem which I shall be discussing tomorrow.

Will the Foreign Secretary press upon Mr. Khrushchev how grave it would be if Russia withdrew as Co-Chairman and that we have really a very great common interest in this part of the world with the Soviet Union? May I wish the right hon. Gentleman luck in his visit to Moscow?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. I certainly intend to press upon both Mr. Gromyko, who is my Co-Chairman, and Mr. Khrushchev, the importance of the Soviet Union not losing an interest in this area. We have hitherto had a wide measure of agreement with the Soviet Government on this area and it would be a great pity if that did not continue.

Will the Foreign Secretary, whilst impressing upon Mr. Khrushchev the message that my right hon. Friend has just asked him to convey, bear in mind that it would be wrong to assume that the British public in any way wants to be engaged in any military action in South-East Asia? It would be against the spirit of the British people. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his authority as one of the Co-Chairmen to try to recall the Geneva Conference, irrespective of the wishes of the Government of South Vietnam, which has never been democratic?

I do not think that there is any intention of the British actually taking part in operations in South-East Asia. I will certainly bear in mind the rest of what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a further statement about discussions with the United Arab Republic Government about the de-sequestration of British nationals whose property was re-sequestrated in October, 1961.

There have been no developments since the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 15th June. Close contact with United Arab Republic officials continues, but Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo has yet to receive a reply to its request for clarification of the United Arab Republic's intentions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been really no development in this matter for nearly three years and that these people's property is now deteriorating both physically and in value? Will he really do something to persuade the United Arab Republic Government to say that they will either return or retain this property? If he cannot get a reply, will he consider referring the matter to the International Court?

As I have said, we are in continuous contact. We have repeatedly informed the U.A.R. authorities of our concern and have asked them at every opportunity, both in Cairo and in London, for a statement of their intentions. We would consider with attention any proposal for negotiations from the U.A.R. authorities, but so far no such proposal has been received. It would be premature for us at this stage either to initiate negotiations until we have received the clarification for which we have asked, especially of the recent decree which as been promulgated in Cairo, or to take the action which my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to the United Kingdom representatives in order to prevent the breakdown of conferences held by or under the auspices of various United Nations agencies by unconstitutional demands for the expulsion of certain members.

United Kingdom representatives at such conferences are required to make every possible effort to prevent breakdowns of this kind. Her Majesty's Government deplore such incidents, but the fact is that the circumstances in which they may arise can be beyond our control.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that agencies of the United Nations are now being used for political purposes? Is he aware that any success of the walk-out technique would create a dangerous precedent? Will he, therefore, do all he can to see that this unconstitutional action does not achieve success?

Yes, I can safely say that we will do all we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects diplomatic relations to be resumed between Great Britain and the Somali Republic.

It is impossible to say at present. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 3rd February, we await an indication that the Somali Government, who broke off diplomatic relations in the first place, themselves wish to resume them.

Is the Minister aware that there is a lot of unofficial evidence that the Somali Government are now anxious to resume relations? Would he agree that the resumption of relations would be of benefit not only to the Somali Republic and to Britain but also, in the long run, to Kenya?

The hon. Member will be aware that the present Somali Government failed to secure a Parliamentary vote of confidence on 14th July. Until another Somali Government is formed, I do not think that we can hope for any new development.

Will the Minister consider making a statement that Her Majesty's Government would welcome the resumption of these diplomatic relations in this important corner of Africa?

If an approach is made to us, we will certainly give it very sympathetic consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will promote a further expansion of the work of the British Council in Latin America.

Subject to the provision of additional funds, the British Council plans to expand its work in Latin America still further, laying particular emphasis on the teaching of the English language.

I am grateful for that reply. Would the Minister agree that we have more potential friends and fewer enemies in Latin America than probably anywhere else in the world? Would he agree that 6 per cent. of the B.B.C.'s overseas expenditure and only 2 per cent. of technical assistance expenditure is really too low for this increasingly important area?

I certaintly agree that the expansion of the Council's work in Latin America is most desirable. Our resources are inevitably limited and we must attempt to use them as effectively as possible in all areas of the world, but this expansion is, I hope, about to take place.

What does my hon. Friend mean by "subject to the necessary additional funds being available"? Is he aware that there is great need for an expansion of this work both in Brazil, for example, and in Peru, where great advantages are to be gained by pursuing the work of the British Council on an extended scale?

We have expanded, and the amount allocated for British Council work in Latin-America in the current year is £283,000. This compares with £233,000 in 1963–64 and is an increase of £50,000. These sums do not include, for example, expenditure on scholars or visitors from Latin-American countries, the supply of Council books and material and theatrical performances which are sent to Latin-America. We are now considering proposals for a further expansion during 1965–66.

Will not the Government consider this again and consider whether it might not be wise to make larger sums of money available as Latin-America will be one of the greatest potential markets in the world over the next 20 years?

Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and that is what we are doing—considering a further expansion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions took place at the Western European Union ministerial meeting on the mixed-manned force.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what statement he made at the Western European Union of the terms on which Her Majesty's Government are at present prepared to participate in either the proposed multilateral, or the mixed-manned force, or both.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 20th July to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) about this meeting. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Multilateral Force was not on the agenda, and I made no statement of our attitude towards it.

Is it not extraordinary that this very important subject to Western defence was not on the agenda? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if the allies go ahead with this plan and allow the Germans to have a finger or fingers on the nuclear button, it will be extremely provocative? Would he, therefore, give the matter the most careful consideration?

Yes, Sir. Naturally, it is a matter for great consideration, on which Her Majesty's Government have not made a final decision.

Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify that Answer a little further? Is he aware that because of British participation in the experimental voyage the view is bound to spread that Her Majesty's Government are in the process of becoming committed in some way to a multilateral or mixed-manned force? Would he make it clear if the Government are categorically opposed to any measure which will spread the ownership, manufacture or control of nuclear weapons, because it would make the situation more difficult?

Yes, Sir; I can give a definite assurance. We are against any dissemination of nuclear weapons. We do not regard the multilateral force in itself as being disseminatory.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to our allies the very interesting point brought out in a letter to The Times today, that if we proceed with this multilateral nuclear force in its present form it will undoubtedly result in a proliferation of Soviet merchant ships all round the world equipped with similar weapons?

All these matters are taken into consideration, and they will be taken into consideration before any decision is reached.

As the whole of the defence of the Western European alliance rests on credibility, would not my right hon. Friend consider that if we could overcome all the difficulties in the alliance in setting up a mixed-manned force this would make the whole defence alliance of Europe appear much more credible in that we are able to overcome these difficulties in our own defence arrangements?

It is precisely to see what the answer to this sort of question is that we are engaged in discussions in Paris and Washington.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Tripartite Agreement of 1950 was last discussed with the Government of France; and what assurances regarding their support of that Agreement have been given to him by the French Government.

We are in normal contact with the French Government on questions affecting the Middle East, and I have every reason to believe that they share our concern for the maintenance of peace and stability in the area.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he would not go as far as his right hon. Friend went this time last week when he said about the Tripartite Agreement that it had been confirmed quite recently by the American Government? Has he not had a similar agreement recently from the French Government, the third party to this Agreement?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what my right hon. Friend has said recently, he reaffirmed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) on 14th May, 1963, that we regard the United Nations as primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. If any threat to peace arises, we will consult immediately with the United Nations and take whatever action we feel may be required.

Will the Foreign Secretary be bearing in mind during his visit to Moscow that this problem will always be a danger until some understanding is reached between the Tripartite Powers on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will bear that and all other relevant matters in mind on his visit to Moscow.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, until any further agreement has been reached, we still regard ourselves at least as bound by the Tripartite Declaration?

I think the position is that the 1950 Tripartite Declaration represented the situation at that time. Since then, the Declaration has not been retracted, but I think we must accept that there has been an alteration in the arms situation in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the British holders of the first debenture stock of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Corporation have not received compensation since the Corporation was nationalised in 1929, if he will give an assurance that before Her Majesty's Government conclude a financial agreement with the Argentine Government involving assistance to them from the United Kingdom he will require provision for the payment of reasonable compensation in this case.

There is no financial agreement now being negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government. The latter have, however, made preliminary inquiries about the possibility of obtaining various types of assistance for their development plan. Settlement of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company's claim will certainly have an important bearing on any discussions which we may have with the Argentine authorities in the context of aid.

As it is a very long time since the stockholders had their funds nationalised and they have received nothing at all yet, can my hon. Friend give the matter a very high priority in the discussions in regard to assistance with a view to some compensation being given?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with U Thant in London regarding peace and security in South-East Asia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with U Thant, the Seretary-General of the United Nations, on the military situation in Vietnam, so far as it comes within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

I had an opportunity of discussing the situation in South-East Asia with U Thant while he was in London. As is normal practice, these talks were confidential.

But as it is well known that U Thant has given the advice, with all the weight of his authority, that the problems of Vietnam and the neighbouring countries cannot be settled by military means and can best be settled by a recall of the 1954 Geneva Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he goes to Moscow, suggest to his Soviet colleague, the Co-Chairman of the Conference, that the time is now ripe for the two Co-Chairmen to inform the other parties to the Conference that they are ready to arrange a conference at such moment as will be convenient to the parties concerned and that the aim of the conference will be to restore peace and tranquillity in Indo-China on the basis of the Geneva Agreements?

The situation differs in the three parts of South-East Asia—namely, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam—and I doubt whether a general conference as proposed would solve the problems from which each area suffers. I shall be discussing these matters with the Soviet Government when I visit Moscow.

As the United States is becoming more and more deeply involved both materially and in terms of prestige in seeking a military solution of this situation, will not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Government agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that a solution can be found by political means by the procedures laid down in the Charter, such as, for instance, the re-convening of the 1954 Conference? Should we not make a stand against the increasing danger of this war situation in the Far East extending to North Vietnam and ultimately to China?

I have already said in answer to previous Questions that we have no evidence that the United States wishes to extend the war to North Vietnam or China. I feel certain that if any such proposals were made we should be informed and also, I hope, consulted, and we should state our opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the recent official United States proposal that the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation shall pursue a common foreign policy in all areas of the globe where there is tension or conflict between Communist and non-Communist countries.

I know of no such proposal.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the recent statements, amongst others, made by Mr. Dean Rusk and Mr. Walt Rostow? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a much more militant American foreign policy is currently developing, with a definite attempt to involve America's allies in N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. in her own quarrels with Cuba, China and Vietnam? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this country will not be involved in these American quarrels?

I have read Mr. Rusk's speech of 9th May. I did not read in it any proposal that N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. should pursue a common foreign policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent during his visit to Moscow he proposes to discuss plans for additional trade between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development negotiated the prolongation of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement, and obtained from Mr. Patolichev an assurance concerning a closer balance in the trade between our two countries. The increased quotas for the exchange of consumer goods also recently agreed provide a useful basis for such an expansion. I shall naturally make known Her Majesty's Government's interest in increasing trade between this country and the Soviet Union.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are all delighted that he is going to Moscow, but we hope that he will not go so far in extravagant praise of the achievements of Communism as did the former Prime Minister and so embarrass us all? Now that I.C.I. is investing £50 million in a factory in the Soviet Union and is no longer scared of Communism, can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to secure a greater measure of trade relations between us?

It is the Government's policy to improve trade and to advance credit.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why, for five years in succession, the Soviet Government have failed to implement Article 8 of the current Trade Agreement, which allows for the negotiation of a treaty of commerce and navigation to replace the temporary Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1934? Would it not be as well to mention these things to the Soviet Government?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I will certainly mention them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one amazing trade phenomenon is that Russian ships come regularly to the port of Aberdeen and discharge cargo but leave again without taking on cargo—indeed, without buying anything, not even Scotch whisky? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that to see that justice is done?

This point was raised in the talks between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and Mr. Patolichev. We said that we wanted a bigger share of trade with the Soviet Union. Mr. Patolichev undertook to see whether this matter could not be remedied.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends making during his conversations in Moscow to protect the interests of British investors in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to firms who extend credit to the Soviet Union in the course of trade, there are already arrangements in existence for them to obtain cover from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. These arrangements are perfectly satisfactory and I therefore see no reason to raise the issue in Moscow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am a small capitalist in the Soviet Union, having a small deposit in the Moscow Bank? It is in roubles and I cannot get it out, but I draw a modest rate of 3 per cent. and it is, I believe, invested in a sound economy. Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything possible to better relations between our two countries so that not only small investors like myself but big investors like I.C.I. will prosper as a result?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be glad to take charge of negotiations on his behalf if he would see me after Question Time.

Is it not a novel idea that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should be a capitalist, however small? Will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries when in Moscow about the possibility of more trade in agricultural machinery and in livestock which was given such a favourable augury at the recent Moscow Exhibition?

Yes, Sir. This visit will be a splendid follow-up to the exhibition, which was such a success. I also propose to discuss the extension of common inquiry into agricultural research with my opposite number.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Is he satisfied that political directives between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade are kept up to date? Is he aware, for instance, that recently I protested at the high rates in respect of China and that these rates were subsequently reduced? There seems reason to believe that the E.C.G.D. is becoming rather more of a political instrument than was intended.

We are always ready to improve the facilities offered. If the hon. Gentleman has any points that he would like to put, I would be glad to pass them on to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will discuss with Mr. Khrushchev the organisation by international agreement of nuclear-free zones and zones of disengagement on the basis of equivalent withdrawals of armed forces, or guarantees not to supply arms and seek bases, by East and West in as many areas of the world as possible; and if he will endeavour to prepare joint proposals on these lines to be put before the Geneva Conference.

I hope to discuss with the Soviet leaders a wide range of questions concerning international security, but I cannot anticipate the details of these discussions or their outcome.

Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the idea of discussing specifically with Mr. Khrushchev the idea of nuclear-free zones? If the right hon. Gentleman, like most Foreign Secretaries, is genuinely opposed to the dissemination of nuclear weapons, would he not put forward specific proposals to the Soviet Government along the lines of those emanating from the Polish Government to try to arrive at some joint proposals to put to the Geneva Conference and to make some progress?

I have already had notice that these matters will be raised from the Soviet side, and we shall be only too glad to consider them. The conditions on which we could consider them were stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as lately as 25th November in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). Subject to these conditions, I think that we might be able to have satisfactory discussions.

Since it is now nine years since Lord Avon first put forward proposals for demilitarisation, to some degree, of Central Europe, will not the right hon. Gentleman now make an attempt to reassess whether our conditions are really necessary and whether a practical solution could not be found?

I think that will depend on the nature of the interchanges I have.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give what he called earlier an unqualified assurance that the British Government have now departed from the hostile attitude they originally took towards the Rapacki proposals?

I do not think that the Government take a hostile attitude to them. They take up an attitude in concert with our allies of criticism of certain aspects of Mr. Rapacki's proposals. That is all.