asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now announce the result of his consideration of the question of United Kingdom accession to the Genocide Convention.

The consideration of this question has not yet been completed. I have, therefore, nothing to add at this time to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 1st March.

Why does the Minister stop at 1st March when this matter has been before this and former Governments for the last 14 years? Are Her Majesty's Government content to stay in the company of the more unattractive members of the United Nations? Is it not time that something was done about this matter?

I am aware that this matter has been the subject of Questions in the House for the last 14 years, as my hon. and learned Friend said. However, the present Government have had the responsibility of facing this problem only in recent months. We are giving the matter very careful consideration indeed, but complex issues are involved and they need consultation.

Does the Minister of State agree that one of the most complex issues is that of political asylum, and has he anything to say about that?

It is one of the difficulties. Successive Governments have always made it clear that they have freely accepted the spirit of the Convention and have supported its objects. In 1962, for example, the complex difficulties were laid very fully before the House. These difficulties are now being re-examined and we will report back to the House as soon as possible.

Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give an answer on this issue very shortly? Is he not aware that the prevailing attitude of the Government has been the attitude of Governments in Britain for very many years and that many people, not only in this country but in other Commonwealth countries some of which have accepted the Convention, cannot understand why we should be standing aside on this matter? Will my hon. Friend give it his immediate attention?

I made it clear that this country has always accepted the spirit of the Convention. Perhaps we are rather more scrupulous than are some in implementing conventions where there are legislative difficulties. One difficulty in fully acceding to the Convention is that to do so would probably imply legislation, and this is one of the matters which is now being actively studied.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now initiate further negotiations to seek an exchange of ambassadors between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.

No, Sir. As I told my honourable Friend on 10th May, we have proposed this to the Chinese and been refused and I have no reason to suppose their position has since changed.

With respect, that is not satisfactory. As it is now about eight months since the Government made this proposition—for which, of course, we should be glad, although we regret that the Chinese did not take it up—should we not seek to alter the position? Will my hon. Friend reconsider the matter and not leave things standing as they are in regard to our relations with a quarter of the world's population?

No, Sir. We have made the position clear to the Chinese Government that we should like an exchange of ambassadors. Their reply up to now has been, "No". If there is a change of heart in Peking we shall be very glad.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now initiate further negotiations to seek the admission into the United Nations Organisation of the People's Republic of China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom permanent representative at the United Nations to raise the question of representation of Communist China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government since October, 1964 to secure the admission of China to the United Nations.

This is a matter which must be decided by a vote of the General Assembly. An item urging the "Restoration of the Lawful Rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations" was included in October, 1964, in the agenda of the 19th Session of the General Assembly, but the Session was adjourned before the item could be considered and the General Assembly is not expected to meet again before the autumn of this year. When the item was tabled in 1964, our representative was, as in previous years, instructed to vote in its favour. Similar instructions will be issued to him for the next Session of the Assembly.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, or the latter part of it—regrettable as the previous part may have been—may I ask him whether he will be prepared to undertake something more than instructing our representatives to vote for the particular proposition?—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Will my hon. Friend initiate negotiations with the other Powers concerned in order that we may stand a better chance of success in the future, particularly bearing in mind the very important rôle that this State, representing one-quarter of the world's population, must, whether we like it or not, play in the world's affairs in the future?

All the Governments concerned are well aware of the position of Her Majesty's Government. There will doubtless be a motion to seat China in the United Nations, and our delegate will vote in favour of it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very clear declaration of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, but would he agree that at this stage in diplomatic relations in the Far East, the admission of China to the United Nations could do nothing but good?

I reiterate that Her Majesty's Government are strongly in favour of the Peking Government taking their seat in the United Nations. As to the broader issue of the international problems of the Far East and South-East Asia, we should certainly like to see a change in the attitude of the Chinese Government equally with regard to the acceptance of an exchange of ambassadors.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling that it is not sufficient merely to be in support of the entry of China into the United Nations, but a matter of supreme importance that this country should make every effort to try to persuade other nations which have so far sought to exclude that part of the world from the United Nations to take a different view, and to do its very best to get China into the organisation?

As a natural part of the diplomatic practice of Her Majesty's Government, we seek to get other countries to share our point of view, and that we shall continue to do.

Whilst I appreciate that Her Majesty's Goverment are following the previous Government's policy, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can say whether or not the People's Republic of China has expressed a wish to join the United Nations?

As far as I am aware, the People's Republic of China has not up to now said that it would refuse to be seated if there were a positive resolution of the United Nations. I think that we should all be wise to continue our efforts to secure the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he is satisfied with the quantity and quality of Her Majesty's Government's information services in the Arab countries, Iran and Afghanistan; and what steps he intends to take to improve them.

Within the limitations of our existing overall budget and manpower, I am satisfied that we are making the best use of the available resources in our information services in the Middle East.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for his reply. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take steps to secure an increase in the overseas information Vote sufficient to enable effective presentation of the Government's policy to be made in all Middle Eastern countries, and to foster mutual understanding with a view to enabling a progressive reduction to be made in our expensive military commitments in those areas.

We are anxious, both in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, to make the most effective presentation in every way possible of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, but any increase in this respect involves an increase in the global amount of money available on the information Vote.

Does my hon. Friend not know that among ordinary folk—in the countries of the Arabian Federation, anyway—there is a good deal of anti-British feeling at the moment; and that the vacuum that has been created by the failure of British propaganda is being filled by United Arab Republic propaganda and German influence? Does he not feel that these are matters that require the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that there is a good deal of critical feeling of Her Majesty's Government's policies in the Middle East, and I believe that that critical feeling is almost always based on misunderstandings of our policy, which our information services do their best to remove. I would pay tribute to the work that our regional information office does in Beirut. In the face of considerable difficulties, it does excellent service on behalf of the country.

What is the total budget for this area for last year and, as the Minister of State said that there was to be a reorganisation there, what is proposed in the coming year?

I am sorry, but I could not give that information without notice. If the noble Lady likes to put down a Question I shall, of course, answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what actions have been taken by the Minister of Disarmament towards achieving disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new proposals Her Majesty's Government have with regard to disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress being made in preparing for another Geneva Disarmament Conference; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new proposals Her Majesty's Government have laid before the United Nations Disarmament Commission for implementing the freeze of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles proposed by President Johnson.

As the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government have played a full part in the discussions at the United Nations Disarmament Commission in New York, which ended its Session on 16th June. Before it closed, the Commission adopted a Resolution which called, amongst other things, for the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference at Geneva to "reconvene as early as possible". It is our view that the Geneva Conference is the most experienced and business-like body for detailed consideration of disarmament questions, and the one most likely to be able to make progress towards agreement on the measures under discussion. We hope that it will prove possible to agree on an early date for a resumption of the Geneva Conference.

With great respect, the Foreign Secretary does not seem to have answered the Question. I asked what the Minister of Disarmament does when these conferences are not taking place? Will he also say what was the purpose of the visit of the Minister of Disarmament to the Scandinavian countries? Was it his intention to disarm them?

Perhaps the noble Lord will put down the last part of his supplementary question as a Question on the Order Paper. In general, the work of my noble Friend is to conduct a complete review of disarmament policy. There are a number of fields in which we think an advance could be made, but they require very detailed study, and on that my noble Friend is engaged.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the People's Republic of China, in recently exploding nuclear weapons, has not helped in any way towards the efforts now being made by this Government, and by many other Governments, for disarmament? Would he also agree that the Minister of State in another place is certainly one of the most under-employed Members of the Government?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is certainly "Yes", and, to the second, equally certainly, "No".

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Chinese nuclear explosions make the whole question of disarmament even more urgent than it was before? Has not the Minister of State helped in New York to make a strong demand for the end of the disastrous drift we have had in this matter for the last 13 years? Can the Foreign Secretary say what proposals he has for reforming the Committee of Eighteen, and ensuring that its work shall be more efficient?

The procedure of the Committee of Eighteen is something that the Committee itself decides. We want to see it proceed rather more speedily, but our first task is to get that Committee started, because that is the best instrument we have at the moment for these discussions.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that last October he and his colleagues were convinced that the time was opportune for a new breakthrough in the disarmament negotiations and that they were going to take an initiative? What has happened to that initiative?

I have explained that there are a number of fields in which we think an advance can be made, but these need careful study and preparation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any new field other than the fields which we explored a year and more ago where he thinks that an advance can be made? If so, could he name one of those fields, because we have had a total absence of any new thinking from the Minister of State for Disarmament, particularly on the United Nations Commission? Will the Foreign Secretary say in regard to the Eighteen-Nation Conference—as it is now June—when he hopes that it will be reconvened because, if we are fortunate, it will soon be time for the General Assembly?

I hope that the conference will be resumed as soon as possible, but, as the hon. and learned Member knows, that is a matter for the Governments of the United States and Soviet Union. The measures we are particularly concerned with are a non-dissemination treaty, the extension of the Test Ban Treaty and a freeze, combined with the destruction of some nuclear vehicles. There are then some larger questions affecting European problems and a reduction in nuclear weapons generally which, as I said, require further study.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be of the greatest help to disarmament if President Johnson stopped unfreezing his bombs over North Vietnam?

There are Questions on that subject to be asked a little later.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the correspondence with the Soviet Government on an international conference on Cambodia; and what will be the scope, personnel, time and place of meeting of the conference.

A record of the Diplomatic Exchanges concerning the Cambodian Conference and a full explanation of Her Majesty's Government's attitude were given in the White Paper which was published on 3rd June. I have nothing further to add at present.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that I understand all that was in that White Paper? Does he not think that it would be a good idea, having regard to the way in which the situation of Cambodia affects other Far Eastern countries, to take a leaf out of the Prime Minister's book and pay a visit to Cambodia with a view to bringing about the desired conference?

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend; it was a long and complex White Paper. I think the Government's position is quite clear on this. It was suggested first by the Cambodian Government, supported by the Soviet Union, that a conference should be held. We fully assented to that view and as soon as the Cambodian Government are prepared to join with us in issuing invitations the conference will be held.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the prospects of such a conference have been affected by Mr. Gordon Walker's remarks that it would be used for other purposes?

That suggestion has been made more than once by hon. Members opposite. There is no evidence for it at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to a settlement of the frontiers of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Eastern Germany.

As regards Her Majesty's Government's policy on the question of a settlement of the frontiers of Poland and Czechoslovakia, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 23rd March.

The Foreign Secretary on 3rd May said that the Prime Minister had mentioned these discussions in the statement which the Prime Minister had spoken of on 20th December, 1961, and 5th July, 1962. Is it then the present policy of Her Majesty's Government not to advocate settlement in Eastern Europe for those three countries together and especially for a wider settlement to which the Foreign Secretary referred on 3rd May?

Certainly not. While we regret the failure so far to conclude a peace treaty with Germany, which is crucial in this matter, we cannot abandon our treaty commitments or cease to work for a peace settlement and for the possible reunification of Germany. The final determination of Germany's frontier with Poland must await the settlement of the peace treaty. On the question of the Munich Agreement and Czechoslovakia's frontiers, that position was made abundantly clear by the statement which the Foreign Secretary made when he recently visited Prague.

Does this mean that Her Majesty's Government's policy is that the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Germany should remain as it is and that any changes made after 1938 do not apply?

The answer to that is "Yes", and that was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend in Prague.

In view of the fact that at the 1961 Labour Party Conference the policy was adopted by an overwhelming majority on the initiative of the National Executive that we should recognise the existing frontiers of Germany and recognise the existence of a second German State, and as those are the only possible terms on which Germany can be united, and as the present policy is not only unreal but an obstacle to making peace, will my hon. Friend make an effort at last to pay some attention to the policy on which we were elected?

Perhaps I might, both as Minister of State and as the Chairman of the Overseas Committee of the Labour Party, repudiate that interpretation of the decision of the 1961 Labour Party Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what action is being taken by the United Nations to bring the conflict in Vietnam to an end.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a statement on the reports he has received up to date from Mr. Gordon Walker on conditions in Asia; and what steps he has taken during the last two weeks towards a peace settlement in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will make a statement on the progress towards an international conference on the Vietnam conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a statement about the current position of the cease-fire negotiations in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will use the offices of the United Nations in seeking a solution to the situation in Vietnam.

Efforts to seek a basis for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam have moved into a new phase with the Commonwealth initiative which was announced on 17th June. In his statement to the House on 17th June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the background to the decision that a Commonwealth mission should make contact with those most concerned in the Vietnam conflict. I do not think I can do more in answering Questions on the various possibilities for action over Vietnam than to refer hon. Members to what he then said. We shall now concentrate all our efforts on making this initiative as fruitful as those concerned will allow.

My right hon. Friend, quite unwittingly, has forgotten what my Question is. I asked him what the United Nations has done in order to secure peace in Vietnam, but he has referred me to the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Do I understand that the United Nations fully supports the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend? If so, could we have some publicity about this matter?

Aspects of this dispute, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) knows, have been reported to the United Nations, but the difficulty there has been the refusal of North Vietnam to recognise the jurisdiction of the United Nations in the matter. Since I last answered Questions on this subject in the House, I have pursued further the question of whether anything could be done through the United Nations, but I am afraid that at present that channel does not seem likely to lead to a solution. It was therefore for that reason that I thought it right to stress the initiative we are now taking.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will be good enough to answer my Question? All I want to know is whether the United Nations fully supports the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend.

We have, of course, drawn the attention of the Secretary General to it and I believe he welcomes it, but it has not been put as a formal matter before the Security Council or the General Assembly.

Would it not be desirable and practicable in the events which have happened in the Far East, and events which have not happened in the Far East, to bring Mr. Gordon Walker home for a conference face to face so that Ministers here can realise more closely what is happening there?

I have, of course, discussed with Mr. Gordon Walker since his return the work he did in the Far East.

In order to clarify the position, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will emphasise the fact that the proposed Commonwealth peace mission has been sponsored by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference as a whole, for which all Commonwealth members accept responsibility, and is not put forward merely by the member States which are going on the mission? Secondly, in spite of the ex parte statements made by Mr. Chou en Lai and the North Vietnam Press Agency, rejecting the proposal, may we take it that the Commonwealth mission will press for an official reply from both the Government of China and the Government of North Vietnam?

I would reply "Yes" to both parts of that question. This is a mission of the whole Commonwealth and, setting aside the remarks we have so far seen reported in the Press, we shall press for proper replies from the Governments concerned to the mission's request to visit their capitals.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Prime Minister's initiative and the mission will not involve any change in the Government's policy of support for the American position in Vietnam, so clearly set out by himself on many occasions?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I have made clear our view that the United States, in the position it was, had to take these military measures. He will remember that I have also said that Her Majesty's Government reserve their right to form and pronounce their judgment on any future events as they occur.

While wishing the Prime Ministers well on the peace mission, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the mission will go ahead, even if some of the protagonists refuse to meet it?

I do not think it would be suitable to answer hypthetical questions at this stage.

In this difficult situation, will my right hon. Friend ask the Americans to cease the bombing of North Vietnam, because this would possibly create a new situation giving rise to an initiative for the peace mission to be successful?

My hon. Friend may have noticed that the mission is already appealing to all parties concerned to show the utmost restraint in military operations as a step towards creating the right atmosphere. I think my hon. Friend would agree that an appeal of that kind must be addressed to all the parties concerned.

The Foreign Secretary seemed to indicate that the Prime Minister's initiative was the result of a collective decision of the whole Commonwealth Conference. If this is so, will he say why there is not a single prospective or actual Asian member of the mission at present? Would he care to reaffirm now that the mission has the support of the whole Commonwealth including, in particular, Tanzania and Pakistan?

As I have said before, this is an initiative of the whole Commonwealth. The hon. Gentleman may know that it had been hoped to include the Prime Minister of Ceylon, but he is unfortunately unable to come in the mission.

Mr. Dodds-Parker.

On a point of order. My right hon. Friend said that in answering Question No. 8 he would deal with certain other Questions, including No. 37. I attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

I heard "47" not "37". I see nods confirming that I am correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the Chinese Government's official statements that China may intervene in the Vietnam war; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.

Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of all the dangers presented by the situation in Vietnam, and it is for this reason that we have worked unceasingly in the search for a peaceful settlement.

May I preface my supplementary question by congratulating the Foreign Secretary on the lucidity, courage and intellectual power with which he presented Her Majesty's Government's case on Vietnam at the Oxford Union? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I think all who heard him were proud to hear him speak for this country.

I think I made it clear on several occasions that while we, for our part, have searched many ways in which a peaceful settlement can be reached, we have so far found a barrier in the attitude of China and, indeed, of other Governments, and that a change is needed there. We have got to go on making our own intention and desire for a settlement clear until that change comes.

Will my right hon. Friend give a definite assurance that in the event of the United States getting involved in a war with China, we will not be involved in it?

I think if my hon. Friend is really thinking in those gigantic terms he may realise that the world might then be in a state in which none of us would be able to control events. We have got to do what we can now to get a settlement of this dispute so that the contingency that my hon. Friend has in mind never a rises.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's policy regarding Vietnam remains the same as the policy which he expressed so ably at the Oxford Union last week?

Yes, and perhaps I should make clear, in view of some of the comments that I have seen, that I said nothing at all there that I have not already said in the House, as hon. Members who have heard what I said in the House will already be aware.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of people passionately want the Commonwealth mission to succeed? But, if it is to succeed, is it not clear that the whole of the mission must be non-aligned and, in order to show that to all the countries and parties concerned, must it not be clear that we no longer support the bombing of North Vietnam by the Americans?

No, I do not think I could accept that. This is a Commonwealth mission, and the Commonwealth contains countries which have different views on the history and possibly even on the best method of settling this problem. What they have in mind is a genuine desire to see if they can find the circumstances in which there could be a conference and discussion, and I think if one said that it had got to be composed entirely of nations which were completely non-aligned on this matter it would not have been representative of the Commonwealth.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now name the dispute over Jordan waters at the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now instruct the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations to raise the issue of the Jordan waters dispute under Article 24(1) of the Charter to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 26th April.

As there is a lull in this area, owing to the preoccupations of some of the protagonists elsewhere, would not this be a good moment to take an initiative on the Johnson Plan, which I am sure the Minister of State realises was accepted at the time by all the limitrophe Powers?

As I told the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when he raised this matter in the House, Her Majesty's Government regard the Johnson Plan as a useful guide line in regard to the allocation of the Jordan Waters between the Arab States and Israel, and we will continue to pursue that point of view.

Would not the Minister of State agree that, with the great tension on the Syrian-Israel frontier, it would be valuable in a purely de facto sense to increase the number of United Nations observers along that line so as to minimise the danger of accidental clashes?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are generally sympathetic to playing our part in strengthening any of the United Nations peace-keeping operations, and we would certainly support all measures which the U.N.T.S.O. Chief of Star considered necessary for the sufficient execution of the duties of his organisation.

What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to President Bourguiba's recent suggestion that in order to ease tension in this area certain United Nations resolutions should be applied, including partition?

That is a wider and rather different question, but Her Majesty's Government have said that they noted President Bourguiba's speech with interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Persian Gulf.

It was I, and not my right hon. Friend, who visited the Gulf recently, between 8th and 16th May. My main purpose was to make acquaintance at first hand with personalities and local conditions in this area where Britain has special treaty relationships and important economic interests.

May I congratulate the Minister personally on the success of his visit to that part of the world? I tabled the Question to him, but some fairy transferred it to his right hon. Friend. In view of the increase in subversion from outside into the area, is the Minister of State satisfied that internal security is all ready to take care of any future difficulties which are likely to arise?

It is always dangerous to prophesy about developments in that part of the world, but we have the problem of security in the area very much in mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, internal security as such is the responsibility of the Rulers and not of Her Majesty's Government.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reply. Will he do all he can to improve the already improving good relations between Britain and Saudi Arabia and between Saudi Arabia and the States he mentioned in his Answer?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Saudi Arabia's interests in this area are very considerable, and we hope to be associated with them in a constructive approach to the problems I have mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps he is taking to improve the commercial services of British embassies.

With the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 27th January and 1st June last, the range of official services to exporters is now more comprehensive than ever before. We are continually seeking to improve the services provided by our embassies and consular posts. Recent steps include the revision of the system of training for officers entering commercial work, improved terms of service for locally engaged officers, provision of more office equipment and the institution of a standard filing system for all commercial departments.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to consider the fact that American Government agencies and embassies do not merely use their commercial attachés as sources of information? Their commercial attachés and embassies—it is the same with German embassies—are active protagonists for American and German interests. Will my hon. Friend see that our attachés are not merely officers waiting to give information to these people who call but are active in propagating the commercial interests of Britain because of our difficult balance of payments situation?

I will take careful account of what my hon. Friend has said. My impression is that our commercial officers overseas are at least as good as their competitors in other countries. It is the job of the Diplomatic Service officer overseas to help the exporter to sell goods. It is not the job of the officer to sell the goods himself.

Apart from improving the service, is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems facing many of our High Commissioners and Ambassadors is that British businessmen do not appear to be aware of the extent and range of the commercial services available? Will the Minister once again remind organisations such as the F.B.I. of the existence of these services?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a very important aspect of the matter. To meet this problem an extensive advertising campaign to inform businessmen of the services is being undertaken.

I was glad to hear the hon. Member speak of his desire to improve the training of officers in commercial matters. Will he accept that in many cases the Foreign Office, sometimes due to lack of staff, sometimes finds it necessary to place in commercial posts people who have had almost no training at all in that direction? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the training that he spoke of is pressed through urgently?

We are very conscious of the importance of training in this matter. We have some difficulties with regard to staff. We do not have as many people in the Diplomatic Service as we should like, but within the limits of manpower we are giving increasing attention to the problem of providing adequate training in these courses.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having regard to the financial difficulties of the United Nations, whether Her Majesty's Government will move for the suspension of any further tours abroad by or on behalf of its Committee on Colonialism as a measure of economy.

Her Majesty's Government do not consider that this would serve any useful purpose. Their attitude to tours abroad by the Special Committee on Colonialism, in the present financial difficulties of the United Nations, has been made clear by the fact that the British representative voted against the present tour on the grounds of the expense involved.

Could not Her Majesty's Government be more zealous about economy in the United Nations, particularly with regard to its less constructive activities? Can the hon. Gentleman mention one piece of informed and useful advice that Her Majesty's Government have received from this Committee on the administration of dependent territories?

On the question of economy in the work of the United Nations, I think that the amount of money spent on the United Nations in pursuing its constructive purposes is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of money that the nations devote to armaments. One has got to see it in that perspective.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the cost of the recent trip by this Committee and can he say what countries paid for it?

Yes, Sir. The Secretary-General has estimated the cost at 109,000 dollars, and the United Nations pays the travelling expenses of the delegates.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new initiatives he proposes to take with Indonesia to settle outstanding differences.

There is little I can add to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my hon. Friend on 3rd May, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement in the Commonwealth and Colonial Affairs Debate on 1st June.

While appreciating that this is largely a matter for discussion between Malaysia and Indonesia, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would agree that our treaty guarantees to Malaysia put us in a very special position and that we could pursue an initiative that could do some good in easing the situation between Malaysia and Indonesia?

We certainly recognise our special relationship and, no doubt, the subject will be fully discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. We are indebted to the interest shown by Pakistan and Ghana, as well as Japan, Thailand and the Philippines, in seeking to promote a cessation of Indonesia's aggressive attitude towards her neighbour, but in the end this matter depends upon Indonesia ceasing aggression.

The Question referred to settling outstanding differences with Indonesia. Does the Minister regard this as an adequate description of an instance of naked and unprovoked aggression against a Commonwealth country?

As I indicated in one of my replies, we do regard this as unprovoked aggression.

Will my hon. Friend recognise that there is real danger it the continuation of this undeclared war between Indonesia and Malaysia? Will he consider again with his right hon. Friend whether the United Nations cannot be used to bring this to an end?

We will certainly consider that. But of course the difficulty is that Indonesia has left the United Nations. The Malaysian Government are keeping the Security Council fully informed, most recently in a letter of 28th May, but I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall keep his view constantly under consideration.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information about reports of gunfire between the Indonesian Navy and shore batteries over the weekend?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better put a Question on the Order Paper if he wants an answer to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the United Nations Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have submitted to the United Nations Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations.

The United Nations Peace-keeping Committee adjourned on 15th June after agreeing on an interim report to the General Assembly. It can be reconvened at any time to continue its work. We are in broad agreement with its conclusions so far as they go.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether he would not agree that the discussions in the Special Committee have been bedevilled by the dispute over past liabilities, especially as regards the Soviet Union and France, as distinct from dealing with the problem of future disputes? Would not my right hon. Friend propose that the two should be separated so that the question of getting the United Nations out of the red should be treated as distinct from getting agreements on future organisation for peace-keeping?

Yes, Sir. I think that I would agree with my right hon. Friend on those points, and in this connection I would ask him to await a statement which I am to make at the end of Questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much we on this side of the House, and I hope on the other side, appreciate the constructive rôle played by the Government in this Special Committee, and also the initiative shown by my right hon. Friend earlier in offering a British contribution? Can my right hon. Friend say whether reports are correct that Britain has offered to make a voluntary contribution toward helping to solve the financial problems which lie behind this problem?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. As to the latter part of his supplementary question I would ask him to await my statement at the end of Questions.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that reports have been received that the President of the Special Committee, Mr. Quayson-Sackey, has said that the Committee would reconvene in August? Is this so? If it is, would the right hon. Gentleman say that he hopes that the Committee will be able to reach a conclusion before the General Assembly meets at some time in the autumn?

I am not sure about its meeting in August, but I have every hope that the General Assembly will be able to resume its work in September.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the report of the Special Committee, which seems very useful as far as it goes, will have in future on special agreements for peacekeeping provided for in Article 43 of the Charter?

I do not know that it particularly affects them. We want to see the machinery of agreements under Article 43 continued, but that I think is a parallel development.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has had from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about Her Majesty's Government's proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force.

The Soviet Government have made their views known to us on a number of occasions, and most recently during my talks with M. Gromyko in March.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was made clear that the A.N.F. will lead to a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons? Does he believe that the A.N.F. proposals will improve East-West relations? What has happened to the A.N.F.?

The A.N.F. proposals are still being examined by our allies. The Russian Government have expressed objection to it. I have never held that that objection is well-founded. If the countries of the Warsaw Pact made comparable arrangements we should not regard it as endangering our security or damaging international relations.

The A.N.F. having been introduced with the primary function of sinking the M.L.F., cannot it now sink, too?

My hon. and learned Friend expressed that view before. I disagree with him now, as I disagreed with him then.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he plans to make a visit to the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent statement by Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United Arab Republic that an official Ministerial visit to Cairo is under consideration, he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's plans for such a visit.

We have the possibility of further Ministerial visits to the area, including Cairo, very much in mind. But the timing must be right and we are still considering the matter.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind that today is a day on which a United Arab Republic Parliamentary delegation is arriving in this country, which I think regardless of politics the whole House will welcome, is not this a good time to plan for a visit to Cairo later on when at any rate differences of views between Britain and Egypt over the Yemen could be discussed and certainly practical measures for an increase of trade?

On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should like to welcome the important delegation of Parliamentarians from the United Arab Republic to which my hon. Friend referred. The timing of a possible Ministerial visit to the United Arab Republic is something which needs careful consideration, because it is important that if it takes place it should register a positive achievement.

In view of the terrorist activities inspired from Cairo which have resulted in the killing of British Service personnel and Arab civilians, is this a good time to make a Ministerial goodwill visit to Cairo? Can the hon. Gentleman also tell me why the director of Cairo Radio, which has been responsible for the most anti-British propaganda for years, is now, as I understand from the Press, the honoured guest of Her Majesty's Government in London?

The violence which is occurring in Southern Arabia and is supported by forces in Cairo is certainly one of the difficulties in the way of bringing about the visit to which both these Questions refer, but Her Majesty's Government are anxious to explore by any means they can ways in which these difficulties between our countries can be removed. It is in the light of that, that the timing of this visit has to be carefully considered.

In his negotiations for visits of this kind would my hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that Cairo, with its violent anti-British propaganda and anti-United Nations propaganda, and particularly with regard to Israel, should be given to understand that we will not stand for that kind of propaganda? Will he express to this individual who has come to this country that we highly deprecate the kind of propaganda emanating day by day from his Cairo Radio?

I think that everyone deplores the advocacy of violence which comes from Cairo Radio, just as everyone deplores the degree of support given to terroristic activities in Southern Arabia, but by far the best means of trying to find a way out of this situation is to allow people from the United Arab Republic to come here and talk with people here and find out for themselves how strongly public opinion feels about this matter and how much it is an obstacle to sensible and good relations between the two countries.

Is it really the fact that the director of Cairo Radio is now here, as my hon. Friend said, as honoured guest of Her Majesty's Government? It seems incredible.

I do not have exact information on all the members of the delegation, but I understand that one of the members is associated with information which comes from Cairo Radio.

Whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages of visiting Cairo, may we press the Minister nevertheless to make a visit to the Middle East as soon as possible because, quite apart from propaganda from Cairo, there is a good deal of unrest and misunderstanding of British policy among countries which have hitherto been a great deal more friendly to us, the Lebanon and Jordan in particular? Does not my hon. Friend feel that a visit by him or one of his colleagues in the Department would be of advantage in making plain to these people what British policy is and Britain's continuing friendliness towards these States?

As I said, we have further Ministerial visits to the Middle East generally very much in mind. I recently visited the Gulf, and I had hoped to visit Beirut on my way back but, unfortunately, Parliamentary business here prevented that visit taking place. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has just returned from a visit to the Lebanon and Jordan, and further visits of this kind will be undertaken as opportunity offers.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the House has been deeply shocked by what it has been told about this official from Cairo Radio? Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman himself was not aware of what is happening, and does not he realise that there comes a point beyond which turning the other cheek is just interpreted as weakness?

I was aware of the delegation which was arriving here and of its composition. I stick to my point that the best way to deal with these matters is to try to clear up misunderstandings and to let people know exactly how the British people feel about these matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As neither the Prime Minister nor any of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers can expect to be welcomed or even received in the capital of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam so long as we do not recognise the Government of that country, will my right hon. Friend as a matter of urgency answer my Question No. 41 on the Order Paper.

No point of order arises. We must maintain the rules.