asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the talks about the condition of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery on Mount Scopus, to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire on 31st May last, have culminated in a mutually agreeable solution; and if he will make a statement.

The discussions to which my hon. Friend referred in his reply to the hon. Gentleman on 31st May are still continuing. Since then I have visited the cemetery and discussed the problem with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Jerusalem. It would be unhelpful at this stage, on a matter which I know the hon. Member has deeply at heart, if I were to say more than that I still hope to find a solution acceptable to all parties.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but this matter has been going on for a very long time. Under the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, did not both Governments agree to free access to Mount Scopus? Which of these two Governments is frustrating the carrying out of this duty that we owe to Commonwealth troops who fell in he First World War?

The hon. Gentleman has been very patient and I appreciate his sense of the time this has taken. But a solution must command the agreement of both Jordan and Israel. I have tried to carry it forward by seeing things for myself on the spot. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who are interested, that, despite the long period of neglect of the cemetery, I found that the great majority of the headstones are in a good state of Considered; to be read the Third time preservation and that the cemetery as a whole still retains a simple and moving dignity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding observance of resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to give effect to any resolutions adopted by the Security Council for which they have voted, subject to any reservations they may have expressed in debate.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, a year ago, the Prime Minister criticised the previous Government for not carrying out part of a Security Council resolution for which they had voted even though they had expressed reservations at the time? Since the present Government now have adopted the same practice in relation to Rhodesia, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to invite the Prime Minister to eat those words?

A great deal depends on the particular reservations and the substance to which they are related. Any Government are bound, in the light of reservations expressed during debate, to act according to those reservations.

asked the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the Soviet Government about the possibility of the British and Soviet Governments, as joint Co-Chairmen, recalling the Geneva Conference on Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he had with the Soviet authorities on the 1954 Geneva Agreements; and to what extent he gave assurances that Her Majesty's Government considers itself bound by these agreements.

I will, with permission, answer this Question and Question No. 11 together.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we regret the hardening of the Soviet attitude on Vietnam which seems to have followed so soon after the Foreign Secretary's visit? What did the Foreign Secretary expect to achieve at the conference on the question of Vietnam? In particular, what reason had the right hon. Gentleman for believing that the Soviet Government would be prepared to take any public as opposed to private initiative in trying to reach a solution?

My right hon. Friend simply takes the attitude that the dangers inherent in the possibility of escalation of the Vietnam war are so great that no appropriate opportunity should be missed to try to get away from the battlefield to the conference table. Obviously, there would have been widespread regret on both sides of the House if he had gone to Moscow and not made the efforts he did.

Mr. Zilliacus.

rose—

Question No. 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), was answered with No. 4. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know. Mr. Soames.

Will the Minister of State appreciate that we on this side are much grieved to hear of the Foreign Secretary's illness? Will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to express on our behalf good wishes to the Foreign Secretary for a quick recovery?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and good wishes to my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend answer the second part of my Question? Did her Majesty's Government make it clear that they are still bound by the 1954 Geneva Agreements to consider that Vietnam is one country, and that a final settlement must include the unification of the whole country and the right of the peoples of the two parts to decide on their mutual relations without outside interference? Would not the Government be more effective in this matter if they linked their support for the American war with a satisfactory assurance that the United States is really prepared to conclude peace on that basis?

Order. Supplementaries are getting too long. Mr. Thomson.

I can assist my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and other hon. Members on this question. Full particulars of British obligations under the 1954 Geneva Agreements and the efforts made by successive British Governments to ensure that those Agreements are implemented will be found in a blue book which we are laying before Parliament, tomorrow, entitled "Documents Relating to British Involvement in the Indo-China Conflict 1945–56."

Can my hon. Friend say whether those documents will include the secret pact, which Sir Anthony Eden signed with Mr. John Foster Dulles and M. Mendes-France in 1954, providing for the partition of Vietnam and the retention of the southern part under Western control, and can he say whether that is still the basis of British policy towards Vietnam?

Without accepting the premise on which my hon. Friend's questions are based, I could not answer his detailed point without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek to have new discussions with the Government of the United States of America, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's policy in seeking peace in Vietnam, in order to prevent further extension of the bombing of North Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek discussions with the United States Government in order to promote an armistice in Vietnam.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, naturally, be discussing Vietnam during his visit to President Johnson. He will be concerned with promoting peace—which is opposed in Hanoi and not in Washington—rather than with the detailed conduct of the war.

As the choice is now between negotiation and spreading the war through the whole of South-East Asia, will the Government press Washington to accept the 1954 Agreement? Has my hon. Friend seen today's report by James Cameron that the Prime Minister of North Vietnam is insisting on such acceptance?

I have not read today's report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have read the other reports from the same source. The fact is that the opposition to bringing the parties to the conference table comes, beyond any reasonable doubt, from North Vietnam, and that is the obstacle to avoiding the danger to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to impress on the United States Government the increasing outrage felt by people here at the savage developments in Vietnam and the fact that many of us in the House who would feel obliged publicly to dissociate ourselves from any extension of the war would welcome acceptance by the United States Government of the proposed Christmas truce and its extension into an armistice which would give an opportunity for saner policies to be adopted?

In all quarters of the country and of the world there is abhorrence of the kind of cruelty and terrors which are involved in modern war, but the only way to avoid these dangers is to end the war itself and bring negotiations about. This has been the Government's constant aim. We very much welcome the Christmas truce proposed by the North Vietnam authorities. It is a very short truce. We would hope that it could be extended to a length sufficient to allow the possibility of real negotiations to take place.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his last answer and agree with it, but will he also express the thanks of the free world to the United States for the very great efforts it is making to stop the Far East going Communist?

The views of Her Majesty's Government have been made plain repeatedly by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I simply repeat that I think that there is general agreement that the important thing to concentrate on is bringing this war to an honourable end, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly be talking about this in Washington.

While allowing for what he has just said, may I ask my hon. Friend to impress upon the Prime Minister that any extension of this war by the United States, which would include China and the rest of South-East Asia, would be deplored, and it is a matter not just of Hanoi not wanting to negotiate but of the continual extension of the war in Vietnam by the Americans?

I know that there are deeply and sincerely held opinions about this war in various parts of the House and a deep desire to bring peace about. But I remind my hon. Friends who feel deeply about it that the obstacle to peace at the moment is the refusal of the North Vietnamese to come to the conference table.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the prospects of a nuclear non-proliferation agreement have been improved following his recent visit to Moscow.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which ray right hon. Friend made to the House on 6th December.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an article in Izvestia on 5th December has somewhat dispelled the note of optimism sounded in that communiqué? Would he now agree that the best way of securing any agreement with the Russians is to reckon that they will be stalling on this issue until we have completed our own arrangements within N.A.T.O.?

No, Sir, I would not accept that. As my right hon. Friend made a detailed statement a week ago and was questioned in detail and as we are led to believe that he will be opening a foreign affairs debate one week today, I urge the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole to await the foreign affairs debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether when his right hon. Friend left Moscow he brought away the impression that the Russians were genuinely seeking a non-proliferation treaty, or was it that they did not think that the time was yet ripe for a non-proliferation treaty but were using the arguments going on in N.A.T.O. as an excuse for not proceeding towards such a treaty?

As my right hon. Friend made clear a week ago, he came away from Moscow with the impression that it was worth while going on with the negotiations in the Eighteen-Nation Committee. Even that was not sure before he went to Moscow, so that I think that the House will agree that his visit was very welcome and fruitful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards nuclear-sharing in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the light of the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state his policy on nuclear-sharing within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Her Majesty's Government's policy is to strengthen the cohesion and security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by associating the non-nuclear members more closely with the arrangements for the Western deterrent while precluding any dissemination of nuclear weapons.

I thank the lion. Gentleman for that general Answer, but can he tell us in particular whether the Government's proposals for an A.N.F. were raised in Paris at the Ministerial meeting which I have mentioned, or, if not, why not?

Yes. The British proposals for an A.N.F. are still on the table in all the discussions in N.A.T.O. No doubt they will be discussed next week. But we do not regard Mr. McNamara's proposal for a special committee and the British proposal for an A.N.F. as being in any way contradictory. They are alternative methods—perhaps complementary methods—of solving the same problem.

As the Government's proposals for an A.N.F. are likely to stay on the table, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is ripe to press ahead with the proposals for nuclear sharing recently put forward by Mr. McNamara and endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) in his speech at Western European Union?

It has been made quite clear that Her Majesty's Government fully support Mr. McNamara's proposal, but this does not mean that other proposals cannot be discussed this week and in the coming months. We want a successful conclusion to this problem of achieving both nuclear sharing on the one hand and non-proliferation on the other. I should have thought that the whole House would have been agreed on that.

Will my hon. Friend explain how negotiations on nuclear snaring, as it is now described, are compatible with the Labour Party policy of trying to establish a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe?

That question has been asked and answered in the House many times. Of course, we support a nuclear-free zone in Europe, providing that there are taken into account not only the missiles which are located in particular areas, but also the warheads which are targeted on particulars areas. In that sense, as a long-term objective, the policy of a nuclear-free zone remains, but nothing in our A.N.F. proposals and nothing in Mr. McNamara's proposals stands in the way of that ultimate objective.

In view of the number of meetings which are to take place in Paris and Washington, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government at this point of time favour a solution to the nuclear-sharing problem in Europe along the lines of a committee, as advocated by Mr. McNamara, or along the lines of the forces of an A.N.F. or M.L.F.?

We do not regard Mr. McNamara's proposals as being in conflict with the British A.N.F. proposals. We hope by democratic discussion to reach an agreed conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in settling the disagreement at the United Nations about the control and financing of peacekeeping forces.

There has been no progress towards agreement on the fundamental issues which divide the Soviet bloc and the French from the majority of the members of the United Nations on peace-keeping questions. There has, however, been a full debate of the question at the current session of the Assembly, the outcome of which is a recommendation that the Special Committee set up to review all aspects of peace keeping should continue its work next year in the light of the debate. I am sure that this recommendation, which has not yet been finally approved by the Assembly, provides the best means of making progress in the search for agreement.

Have any countries made or announced voluntary contributions since Britain and certain other countries made their offers this summer?

There is another Question on this subject. Twenty countries have now made contributions.

Would the Minister of State say what is in the Government's mind about proposals concerning the uniting for peace resolution?

We consider that the Security Council has the primary but not exclusive responsibility for peace keeping. We believe that the General Assembly also has a general responsibility to authorise peace-keeping operations whenever the Security Council is unable to act.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what progress is being made in the implementation of the United Nations resolution on Rhodesia;

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the South African and Portuguese Governments seeking their co-operation in imposing sanctions against the illegal Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of the Republics of France, Spain, Portugal and South Africa regarding their policy towards the Rhodesian problem; and, in particular, whether he has established the extent to which they will co-operate in Her Majesty's Government's policy of sanctions against Rhodesia.

We have made representations to all Governments with which we have diplomatic relations seeking their support, in accordance with the Security Council resolution of 20th November, for the economic measures we have taken against the illegal régime. We have obtained a very wide measure of support.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House in some detail what proposals the Government have made in this regard?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will excuse me for not going into detail in a supplementary answer when there are a number of other Questions to follow. We have been to all the countries with which we have diplomatic relations and we have had a very good response in terms of an embargo on the main ex ports from Rhodesia.

Can the Minister tell us, in terms of that very good response, what has been the reaction of Portugal and South Africa to their collaboration in possible oil sanctions?

Yes, Sir. The Portuguese Government is considering our representations. It has not recognised the illegal régime in Rhodesia and has said that it has no wish to obstruct communications with Zambia. The South African Government has not recognised Rhodesian independence, but has said that it will maintain normal intercourse with Rhodesia. We are continuing to make diplomatic representations to both those Governments.

In view of the desirability of settling this matter within the Com- monwealth if possible, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to confirm that every attention will be paid to the Prime Minister of Nigeria's visit to London this week to see if a Commonwealth initiative cannot be launched on this?

Yes, indeed. We very warmly wecome the distinguished Prime Minister of Nigeria who is coming to this country tomorrow and we hope that discussions between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government will be fruitful.

Can my hon. Friend say how many countries have fully implemented the United Nations resolution or have given an indication that they intend to do so? Can he further say what pressures Her Majesty's Government are bringing to bear on those countries which have indicated, by one means or another, that they do not wish to follow the resolution?

I do not think that the matter can be defined easily in the terms in which my hon. Friend has put it, because the United Nations resolution covered a number of matters, including an oil embargo, on which it has not been possible to gain international agreement in its implementation. The greater number of countries with whom we have friendly relations have taken positive action in support of the measures we have carried out.

Concerning the United Nations resolution on Rhodesia and the reservations made by Her Majesty's Government that this resolution did not come under Chapter VII of the Charter, can the Minister of State say whether Her Majesty's Government consider that it comes under Chapter VI?

These questions relating to the United Nations Charter sometimes have a theological quality to them. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the matter exactly when he said that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, this particular resolution came somewhere between Chapters VI and VII.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he gave his consent to the visit of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret to the United States of America being made official.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he gave his consent to the visit of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret to the United States of America being made official; and what official duties he advised her to perform.

My right hon. Friend agreed in principle to the visit last January, after he had been told that Her Royal Highness had received a private invitation to visit the United States. In fact, the desirability of an official visit to the United States by a member of the Royal Family either during the autumn of this year or the spring of next year, had been agreed long before Her Royal Highness's private plans became known.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer is not very satisfactory? Can he say whether the official visit revolved round the private visit or vice versa? Can he say whether all the official engagements which originally came from the Foreign Office were accepted by Her Royal Highness in toto?

I am glad to be able to give my hon. Friend information on both of these points in view of the considerable public misrepresentation which there has been.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Far from objecting to any of these suggestions for official engagements made by our Ambassador in Washington, as was suggested in the New Statesman on 3rd December, Princess Margaret proposed a number of additional engagements. The visit took 20 days. Fourteen of those days were entirely taken up with public engagements and during this period more than 60 official and public functions were undertaken.

Is the Minister of State aware that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would agree that it is just about time that the Foreign Office made a statement which showed that Princess Margaret had really tried to do even more than she was asked?

Does the Minister agree that it is about time that some hon. Members on his own side stopped sniping at Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon?

Order. It would not have been in order for any hon. Member to snipe at Princess Margaret. There is a Parliamentary way of making any criticisms of the Royal Family.

On a point of order. There is a Parliamentary way of raising this matter on the Adjournment, and I propose to do so at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the admission of Western Germany to any form of participation in any kind of international nuclear force would make it impossible to reach agreement with the Soviet Union on a treaty to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or on disarmament and disengagement, the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in central Europe, or the unification of Germany, if he will now give priority to the need for diminishing tension, disarmament and a political settlement in Europe.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend on 2nd November, Her Majesty's Government's policy is both to achieve progress towards agreement on non-dissemination and disarmament, and to work actively with our allies to ensure our effective collective defence. Our aim is to achieve both these objectives in harmony.

Does my hon. Friend recall that on 23rd November last year the Prime Minister said that any measure for strengthening collective defence which made agreement with the Soviet Union on these matters more difficult was no longer appropriate? Is it not clear by now that any form of associating Western Germany with any kind of international nuclear force would be a fatal obstacle to reaching agreement with the Soviet Union in these matters?

I have nothing to add to the replies of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, already given to my hon. Friend on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he intends to put forward to promote disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government intend to take to promote progress in disarmament.

I would refer hon. Members to what my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) on 22nd November. The Government intend to make a determined effort to reach agreement on preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons and on the extension of the partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to cover underground tests.

While agreeing that priority should be given to a treaty to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, may I ask my hon. Friend what further measures his Department is preparing in view of the proposal by the United Nations Organisation to convene a world conference on disarmament? Does my hon. Friend realise that at present more is being spent on arms in the world than the total national income of Africa, Asia and Latin America?

The Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee has been reconvened largely on British initiative. My hon. Friend can remain satisfied that the Government will take a full part, both at Geneva and at New York, in promoting disarmament measures.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary claimed last week, presumably by mistake, that the present Government had put forward to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee four new proposals which had not been put forward by the previous Government? Will he take this opportunity to correct the record? Have they put forward any new proposals at all?

I think that the hon. Gentleman might raise that matter in the debate on foreign affairs which we hope to have next week.

Will my hon. Friend recognise that the summoning of this disarmament conference for 1967 is a new fact and that it is urgently important that Her Majesty's Government should prepare proposals which go beyond the very limited partial measures now under consideration.

I fully accept that.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is absolutely right and that in fact nothing has been achieved by the Minister for Disarmament in the whole of this year? Can the hon. Gentleman give one achievement? What is the Minister doing in Japan., in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that the Foreign Secretary had agreed everything with the Japanese Government already?

My noble Friend the Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament has done a very constructive job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—yes—by expanding the disarmament section of the Foreign Office —[Interruption.]—by his participation in the discussions in Geneva and by his participation in the discussions in New York.

Is my hon. Friend aware that neither of the two measures which he mentioned is in fact a disarmament measure and that no sign has been given of any recognition by Her Majesty's Government that unless nations are offered security they will not give up their arms?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only has there been no achievement, as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), but there has been no constructive new initiative since the Government came to office? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in the light of reports of scientific advance in detection, he is thinking of actively resuming negotiations with a view to extending the last Administration's test ban treaty so as to cover underground tests?

My original Answer gave a positive response to the final part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The plain fact is that, in the early months of the Government's period of office, other powers were not prepared to agree to a reconvening of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva. With the Foreign Secretary, I spent days last March seeking to convince Mr. Gromyko that this should be done. Obviously one has to reactivate machinery before one puts forward specific proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has for taking new initiatives to strengthen the North Atlantic Community.

My right hon. Friend was hoping to attend the Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation this week and to have discussions with his colleagues on the strength and cohesion of the alliance. He will not now be able to do so because of illness. But my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be attending.

Why are the Government being so complacent about pressing ahead with the Kennedy Round of tariffs? The Minister is surely aware that without the Kennedy Round the division of Europe into two discriminatory trading blocs will have serious repercussions? What has been done about this?

I confess that I am a little surprised at the relationship of the Kennedy Round to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Personally I am strongly in favour of both.

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

My right hon. Friend visited Japan in October to take part in the fourth round of the regular AngloJapanese consultations which are held alternately in London and Tokyo at Ministerial level. He had discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and they found themselves in agreement on almost all issues. At the close of his visit a joint communiqué was issued—and a copy was placed in the Library of the House on 3rd November—describing the success of the consultations and the valuable contribution they made to the maintenance of good relations with Japan.

Is the Minister aware how encouraging it is to find agreements like this being made with an Asian Power, in view of the present difficulties in Asia and Africa?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government's policy of recognition of the royalist régime in the Yemen has been affected by the talks regarding the formation of a new interim régime there.

Her Majesty's Government hope that a régime representing both sides in the Yemen will emerge from the present talks, but I understand that the Haradh Conference has not yet reached agreement. According to our established practice, the recognition of the Royalist Government is bound to continue until there is an alternative régime which fulfils our criteria for recognition.

While thanking the Minister of State for that Answer, may I ask him to indicate whether, should such a coalition Government emerge as a result of these talks, it is possible that relations between Sana and Aden would be improved, because of the domestic preoccupations of the new coalition government?

I have very much in mind the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that the first sentence of my Answer gave an indication of our positive attitude towards the attempts for a Yemeni settlement, now being made.

While we must all hope for the success of the Haradh conference, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if all that has happened in the Yemen does not show how right a Conservative Administration was to continue to recognise the Imam's Government and how right Her Majesty's present Government are to continue this policy?

I think that we can leave who was right and wrong in the past if only we can get some sort of decent settlement for the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will enter into discussions with other members of the North Atlantic Alliance with a view to making it possible for East German citizens to travel to the West in compassionate cases without recourse to the West Berlin Travel Office.

The whole question of travel by East Germans to Western countries is kept under constant review in the North Atlantic Council. Following recent discussions by the Council the Allied Travel Office in Berlin issued the following statement on 10th December:

"In view of the great number of applications by pensioners from the Soviet Zone, the competent authorities have decided to introduce a simplified procedure to facilitate the entry of per sioners into North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. This procedure fully conforms to the present rules for the entry of Germans from the Soviet Zone into North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Pensioners who wish to travel to Western countries are asked to apply for visas at the competent Visa Office of the State they propose to visit. They are reminded that each country has differing requirements and therefore applicants should contact the appropriate national authorities concerned for detailed information before submitting an application."

Order. Other Departments have made shorter Answers than that.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, which goes some way—[HON. MEMBERS: "A long way."] —to meet some of the difficulties which my constituent experienced, may I ask him whether he agrees that, in the case which I referred to the Foreign Office, people in the Eastern Zone were prevented from visiting the West, not by the East German Government, bat by these very antiquated and now out-of-date regulations?

No, I cannot accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make available, as an alternative, passports containing a larger number of pages to avoid the need for constant issue of new passports to those who have to travel frequently abroad.

No, Sir. I am satisfied there is insufficient demand to justify the administrative difficulties which would be involved in offering an alternative passport containing more than the present 32 pages. Only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the 700,000 issued annually are in replacement of passports which have become full before their date of expiry. Special ararngements exist for business men whose passports become full of visas to obtain a fresh passport quickly and with the minimum formality.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are only 27 effective pages of a passport, not 32, which can be used for visas? This is a matter of great inconvenience to overseas salesmen and people connected with the overseas drive?

The Board of Trade, under the Conservative Administration, carried out a survey in 1963 which showed that there was very little demand among businessmen for a larger pasport. A larger passport would also involve a larger fee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the United Arab Republic about that country's decision to prevent the passage of goods for Rhodesia through the Suez Canal.

The position remains as described in my reply on 29th November to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). So far as I am aware, no goods have been confiscated by the United Arab Republic authorities in this connection.

But is it not a fact that the U.A.R. has given such instructions to the canal authorities? Will Her Majesty's Government support such measures, particularly as the Security Council is meeting today to consider strengthening economic sanctions?

There is another Question on the possibility of the Security Council taking further action. The resolution of 20th November did not include anything which could be taken as referring to stopping the transit of goods through the canal, and I have no knowledge of any such instructions having been issued by the U.A.R. Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Gibraltar and Spain, with particular regard to movement between the two countries over the La Linea border.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the present relations between Gibraltar and Spain, and on his plans for bringing that dispute to an end.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet studied the Spanish Government's Red Book; and if, as a result, talks will be held with Spain about the frontier restrictions imposed upon Gibraltar.

On 4th December, the Spanish Government published a "Red Book" on Gibraltar. It contains no proposals for talks about the frontier restrictions but indicates that the Spanish Government wish to have negotiations about the whole future of Gibraltar. It consists of over 500 pages and is now under study.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that life in the past for the people of Gibraltar has been extremely difficult and that, if this border question persists in the future, life will become intolerable? Does he agree that stronger action should be taken with the Spanish Government now so as to give some encouragement to the people of Gibraltar that their future will be a little more comfortable?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman in his expression of solidarity with the loyal British subjects of Gibraltar. Her Majesty's Government have given substantial economic and technical assistance to make the Gibraltar economy viable in the face of threats from Spain. We have not, up to now, taken the view that action other than action designed to build up a strong Gibraltar economy was the practical policy to pursue, and this remains our view, although, if some of the statements and threats contained in the Red Book were carried out, we might revise our view.

Does my hon. Friend realise that his view should not be fogged by the Red Book to which he has referred so much and that a settlement of this dispute is anxiously awaited by thousands of British citizens as well as by many Gibraltarians whose trade, industry and commerce, including the tourist trade, depend on a settlement at a very early date? Will he make clear that he stands by the solidarity of the British position?

The answer to that is, Yes.

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that these frontier restrictions have been in operation now for well over a year, to the grave prejudice of the people of Gibraltar, and through no fault of theirs? Has not the time come for Her Majesty's Government to take some political as opposed to economic initiative to try to resolve the deadlock?

As I have explained on countless occasions in the House, the truth is that we have been taking political initiatives for well over a year.

Very ineffective.

I remind the hon. Gentleman, when he says that the restrictions have been in operation since October, 1964, that they go back, at least in my period in the House, to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen in 1954.

Does my hon. Friend think that the Spanish Government are doing something which they should not do in imposing these measures at the frontier?

We have repeatedly made clear that we think that before there can be talks as called for by the resolution of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations, these restrictions at the frontier must be raised. So the answer to that question is, Yes.

Have Her Majesty's Government had any reaction from the Spanish Government to the United Nations resolution and to the words of Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations? If the answer to that is "No", will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Spanish Government to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would like to hear what their reactions are?

Seven weeks ago, Her Majesty's ambassador in Madrid had discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister, but, up to now, we have had no response to those discussions. There has not been time since the latest discussions at the United Nations for a further exchange of views.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has to visit Latin America.

My right hon. Friend plans to visit Peru from 2nd to 6th January next, Chile from 6th to 10th January, and Argentina from 10th to 14th January.

In view of the very close relations between Peru and this country, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to discuss with the Peruvian Government the possibility of increasing aid to Peru and also the possibility of giving more assistance to the British V.S.O.s working in the barriadas outside Lima?

I shall draw those points to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Would it not be an encouragement to the success of the Foreign Secretary's visit if the Government now announced their intention to implement the recommendations of the Parry Committee on Latin-American Studies?

My hon. Friend had better put down a separate Question if he wants a reply to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Federal German Government, in a budgetary balance Bill now under consideration by the Bundestag, proposes to postpone for two years payment of a considerable part of the compensation accorded to victims of Nazi persecution, some of whom had to wait more than 20 years for the recognition of their claims; and if he will convey to the Federal German Government the feeling in this country that, on humanitarian grounds and in view of the undertakings of the Bonn/Paris Convention, the compensation payments should not be subjected to budgetary curtailment.

While I have every sympathy for those victims of Nazi persecution who will have to wait still longer for their compensation, the timing of the payments is a matter for the Federal German Government.

In view of the recent agreement between our country and Western Germany about the manner in which compensation and other matters should be attended to, does not the Minister think that an act of this kind, which defers payment to people who in many cases are very old or on the verge of death and who have been waiting for over 20 years to obtain some kind of recognition, is most regrettable? Will he at least inform the Federal German Government that there are many people both in this country and elsewhere who are deeply disturbed at the action which they propose?

I have expressed my feelings of sympathy in the matter. The Convention which my hon. Friend referred to, the Bonn-Paris Convention, does provide that the capacity of the Federal Republic to pay may be taken into consideration in determining the time and method of compensation, and, therefore, we have no formal standing in the matter.

Is it not unfortunate that at the first breath of economic difficulty there should be difficulty over these payments by the German Government, and will the hon. Gentleman make representations that this only prolongs episodes which are best forgotten?

Her Majesty's Government will, of course—as always—take into account the feelings expressed in the House this afternoon, and I have no doubt that the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the House will be widely reported.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the reason for the abstentions of the United Kingdom in votes at the United Nations on 23rd November on a resolution adopted by the Security Council asking states to refrain from offering Portugal assistance in connection with her colonial policy.

The United Kingdom representative abstained on the Security Council resolution of 23rd November on the Portuguese territories because it contained certain provisions which Her Majestys' Government could not accept.

Do not these abstentions, and similar ones during the past year, make nonsense of the jibe on page 22 of the Labour Party's manifesto that Britain was to be found in the ranks of abstentionists on such issues at the United Nations?

No. I do not think so. I think that if the hon. Gentleman examines the record of voting by the present Government at the United Nations during the last 14 months he will find that over the whole range of the activities the Government have been very much more forthright and more decisive than their predecessors. In this particular case the Government's disagreement with Portuguese policy has been made clear repeatedly. We abstained on this matter because some parts of the resolution would have supported the demand for the immediate granting of independence to overseas territories, and since we resist this kind of demand in respect of our own territories we were justified in abstaining on this.

On the question of abstaining from voting for the resolution which referred to internal policies of Colonial Territories, would the Minister of State explain further how it is that successive Governments, including his own, have abstained on questions about Rhodesia, but after U.D.I. they took part in voting on them? Is it not exactly the same question over independence of Portuguese colonies—

Order. We cannot discuss Rhodesia on a Question about Portugal.

The illegal declaration of independence in Rhodesia created a completely new situation, and we had to act accordingly.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my supplementary question, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from foreign Governments regarding the publication of the Penkovsky Papers.

The Soviet Ambassador made representations on 15th Novemier. I pointed out in reply that Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility for or control over what is published by private firms and that we do not go in for censorship.

Whilst welcoming the Minister's reply, may I ask whether the matter was raised during the Secretary of State's visit to Moscow? Does he consider, in view of the fact that members of the British Embassy are mentioned in the papers, that the documents are accurate?

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the answer is, No. I do not think it is for Her Majesty's Government to express views as to the authenticity of commercially published publications.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reduction there has been in the propaganda directed from Cairo Radio against the United Kingdom and her territories since the Minister of State's visit to Egypt.

I regret that there has been no reduction in Cairo Radio's propaganda campaign against Her Majesty's Government's policies since my visit to the United Arab Republic.

But can the Minister point to one concrete example of advantage arising from this visit? Would it not have been preferable to have had much more careful diplomatic preparation before the hon. Member went to Egypt?

No. Although there may be many criticisms in connection with my visit to the United Arab Republic, I think that lack of preparation is scarcely one of them. It was certainly prepared for over a very long time, and delayed on many occasions. The United Arab Republic is a very important nation in the Middle East, and I think it is not a good thing that, over a long period, this country should have less than normal relations with her. I think it was worth trying. I think it is worth going on trying.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he is making to resolve the Cyprus problem.

The Cyprus question is now being debated at the United Nations General Assembly. We must await the outcome of that debate, which we hope will pave the way for further progress towards a solution.

In view of the reports of lessened tension in that part of the world, may I ask the Government to take some initiative at this moment to see whether we can reduce our considerable commitments in the area?

Pending the outcome of the U.N.O. discussions, I think it would be premature for the Government to seek an initiative of any kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made towards resumption of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Somalia.

As my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place on 2nd December, we remain ready to resume relations at any time. But we have no indication as yet that the Somali Government wish to do so.

Will my hon. Friend accept my view that there is a dangerous vacuum in the Horn of Africa despite the fact that the Somalis have enormous good will for us? Would he at least consider establishing a consulate in Mogadishu so that instead of the Americans doing our job there for us, and the Italians doing the Somalis' job here for them, we could do it ourselves?

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a constructive suggestion, and if the Somali Government were in fact to ask Her Majesty's Government to appoint a consul in Mogadishu as a preliminary to full resumption of relations we would be ready to consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now propose in the Security Council of the United Nations that the representative of Nationalist China be refused further admission to the meetings of the Security Council and that the Chinese People's Republic be invited to send a representative to take the seat of China.

No, Sir. As I told my hon. Friend on 15th November, Her Majesty's Government consider that the right organ of the United Nations in which decisions of principle about a change in Chinese representation should be taken is the General Assembly. As a result of the vote taken in the General Assembly on 17th November on this subject no change in representation has taken place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it has previously been stated that the Government are, in principle, in favour of the Chinese People's Republic occupying the seats of China in all the organs of the United Nations, and what is to stop the Government from taking an initiative in the Security Council which has its own procedural rules in this matter?

My hon. Friend is quite right that the Security Council and the General Assembly are separate organs of the United Nations and that the decisions of the former are not binding on the latter. Nevertheless, I think it is the right view of the relations between the Assembly and the Security Council that the General Assembly should remain the appropriate organ of the United Nations for reaching decisions of principle about changes in China's representation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of the circumstances of the failure of Her Majesty's Consulate Office in New York to make the proper arrangements for a group of Midland exporters for the sale of their products; and if he will take steps to see this does not happen in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the failure of British Consulates in America to facilitate the recent trade mission of the Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce in their efforts to promote the exports of local industries; and if he will take steps to ensure that future missions from Great Britain receive adequate assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the breakdown in the arrangements made by the Consular representative in New York to enable a party of Leicester businessmen to promote exports to the United States of America recently; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that such obstacles to the promotion of exports do not occur again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent complaints of lack of help to British businessmen in New York, he will ensure that British embassies and consulates overseas are instructed to afford every assistance to firms wishing to export British products to the countries to which they are accredited.

I have investigated the criticisms made of the arrangements for this visit and conclude that there were certain shortcomings in the organisation of the mission's programme in New York. These were due mainly to the failure of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce to provide adequate information about the mission's requirements, but partly also to some lack of co-ordination between the Leicester Chamber, the British-American Chamber of Commerce, which was in general charge of the arrangements, and the Consulate-General. The Consulate-General which was brought in at a very late stage has already expressed regret. I am glad to say that arrangements for the visits of this Mission to Los Angeles and Chicago appear to have been satisfactory and the tour of the United States in general to have been regarded as successful.

Does not the Minister of State know full well that he is really whitewashing the whole of this affair and that there is a cause for great complaint? Surely it is the job of our embassies abroad to know when these missions are coming and to go ahead and consult. The hon. Gentleman ought to investigate this matter a great deal further than it appears he has done from the reply that he has given today. Will he consider whether the time has arrived when, on a short-term basis, we should have some men in our commercial embassies overseas who have had experience in selling?

My noble Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade is an industrialist of considerable experience. I am a trade unionist of considerable experience. Both of us have investigated the whole of the facts of this situ- ation and, while we are ready to acknowledge that there was some fault on the part of the Consulate-General, we believe that there was equal fault at least on the part of the Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce in not responding to an earlier request for advance information of the visit of the mission. I would like to say to the House that——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this laborious pontification from the Government Front Bench entirely out of order and against your wishes in this connection?

I will not deal with that point of order at the moment.

I was answering three Questions together, and if one divides the length of my reply by three——

Order. Comment on what a right hon. or hon. Gentleman is going to do with a Question takes time. He must answer.

The last point that I was going to make was that, in view of the publicity that has attached to the matter, it is worth while remembering that the combined efforts of British industry and the commercial counsellors of the British Embassy in the United States have led to Britain exporting 16 per cent. more to the United States in the first nine months of this year than they did last year.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that there is growing support for the criticisms made by the Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce of our consular services? Will he use this opportunity to introduce a searching inquiry with a view to improving both the structure and the composition of our commercial representation abroad?

The searching inquiry was in fact conducted by the Plowden Committee. I must say that it is not only industrialists outside the House but industrialists on both sides of the Chamber who, in discussions with me in recent months, have paid personal tribute to the great improvement that has taken place in the last few years in the commercial services of British embassies abroad.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that the consulate in New York gave no assistance at all to this delegation with briefing on the American market and no assistance to get their goods through the Customs? Those are two particular points. In general, will he ensure that in future all our embassies are given a positive directive to give really knowledgeable and accurate assistance to all exporters, not only to America but all over the world?

This is a very complex issue. In fact, the mission was met at the airport by the Anglo-American Joint Chamber of Commerce. If the Anglo-American Joint Chamber of Commerce met the mission, it was certainly not obligatory on an officer of the embassy to meet them.

Would not the Minister of State agree that the Leicester Chamber of Commerce replied to all letters received from New York very promptly indeed? If he is not aware of that, will he please look into the matter and check on it? Secondly, will he please examine the liaison between our official representatives abroad and chambers of commerce so that there will not be any breakdown in these arrangements in future?

I accept that it is of enormous importance that there should be the utmost co-operation between the commercial services of the Diplomatic Service and British industry. So far as there was any slip-up on the part of the commercial services of the British Diplomatic Service, my original Answer apologised for it. All I emphasised was that a good deal of the fault lay on the other side.

rose——

Order.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and particularly as the Foreign Office told me that the Minister would answer on this matter at the end of Questions and he answered during Questions—which shows that his own Department does not know what it is doing—I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Order. Question Time is now over. I will now deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I did not take it in Question Time because it would have cost Question time. It would be unfortunate to pinpoint anything that happened today on to one particular Question and Answer. I know that foreign affairs Questions are important, but if we take time over important foreign affairs Questions, supplementary questions and answers, we lose equally important foreign affairs Questions which hon. Gentlemen wish to have answered, so that the same principle ought to guide those who ask and those who answer Questions, even on foreign policy, as upon other days.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that I know that the House will support any effort of yours to keep the speed of Question Time up to the pace that it has reached on other days.

That is a very dangerous carte blanche to give anyone.