With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present to the House a Petition emanating from my constituency concerning the urgent need to fix a firm and early date for the construction of a new maternity hospital in Leicester and for other work to be done at Leicester hospitals to reduce the seriously long lists for admissions.

This Petition relates to one signed by more than 9,000 of the citizens of Leicester, which has already been presented to the Minister of Health.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions have been reached in the talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent talks between the British Government and the Spanish Government about Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish talks on Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the talks with the Spanish Government representatives on Gibraltar.

At the talks on 18th May, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs stated the Spanish Government's case and made proposals for an Anglo-Spanish Convention concerning Gibraltar. I replied with the statement of Her Majesty's Government's position. Copies of Senor Castiella's statement and verbatim extracts from my reply were placed in the Library on 19th May.

It was agreed that the talks should be continued between officials of the two Governments and an initial meeting took place on 20th May.

In view of the Spanish Foreign Minister's statement in Madrid on Friday, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how firmly he put to the Spanish delegation that the future of Gibraltar must remain firmly wedded to this country? Can he not, furthermore, agree that it would have been better if these talks had never been begun and if instead we concentrated on having the Spanish frontier restrictions ended?

The hon. Member will be able to see from the extracts from my statement that I put the position very clearly indeed. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that it would have been better if the talks had never been begun. The reasons for beginning them were explained to the House some time ago and I emphasised, of course, that talks were much more likely to be fruitful if the restrictions were removed and our firm belief that there is no justification for the restrictions.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his stand in defence of Gibraltar against the Spanish demands, may I ask whether he would not agree that, in view of the fact that the talks are continuing and their delicate nature, it would be advisable for the Spanish lobby of hon. Members of this House not to visit Spain during the Whitsun holidays as guests of the Spanish Government?

I think that it would be desirable to refrain from anything that might prevent the talks from resulting in a removal of the restrictions on Gibraltar.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of saying on the Floor of the House that there is no intention in his mind of making any bargain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar?

I have stated our position concerning the sovereignty very clearly indeed, and I stated it also to Senor Castiella.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the firm statement which he made in reply to the Spanish Foreign Secretary has been well received in Gibraltar and that, in particular, his regard for the feelings of people on the Rock has been widely appreciated? I should like to ask two questions. First, is there any indication that the blockade will be lifted? Secondly, does not the suggestion that Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht be cancelled indicate by implication that the Spaniards have accepted the legality of our continued existence in Gibraltar?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for the first part of his question. I believe that it has had that effect in Gibraltar.

I am hopeful—I ought not to say more at present—that one result of these talks will be the establishment of a civilised relationship between Gibraltar and Spain. It is true that in the view of the Spanish Government, which has requested the cancellation of Article 10—I want to state the position quite fairly—the Treaty of Utrecht establishes British sovereignty to the Rock and Fortress. The Spanish Government made a number of comments about what, they claimed, were violations on our part of the Treaty of Utrecht with which I could not agree.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Gibraltar authorities have been kept fully in the picture during all these discussions?

Yes. The House knows what the position is. Gibraltar is not, and does not want to be, an independent member of the Commonwealth. It wants its position to be substantially as it is now. Consequently, the talks are conducted between the British and Spanish Governments. We do keep in touch with, and are well informed of, Gibraltarian opinions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusions have been reached in discussions with the Indonesian Government on the manner in which British financial assistance will be employed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to aid for Indonesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to how the £1 million given to Indonesia will be spent.

I explained the policy of Her Majesty's Government to the House on 29th April, when I described our offer of one million pounds of emergency aid. Negotiations with the Indonesian Government are still proceeding and we hope to have a formal indication of Indonesian requirements very shortly. We shall then be able to decide on the best and speediest means of meeting their requests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure that our gift to Indonesia is provided by way of goods and services rather than by cash? Is he aware that there are many ways in which the living standard of the teeming millions in Indonesia could be raised, and that our exporters would welcome every opportunity to help?

We are awaiting a statement from the Indonesian Government of what goods and services would be most helpful to them. It is probable that most of them will be supplied from this country. The whole gift was related to the economic needs of Indonesia.

Has the Government's offer of £1 million in aid been accepted in principle by Indonesia, and what is now the attitude of the British Government towards the supply of aid to Indonesia by those Governments which are friendly towards Britain? Are we now encouraging such aid?

The hon. Member may recollect that when I first made the statement to the House about this, it was made at that time because it had then, and not before, been accepted in principle by Indonesia. Our gift followed gifts by a number of our friends and we are fully in sympathy with their attitude in making those gifts.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the nature of the talks now taking place to end confrontation?—Can he say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to play a part in these talks?

I do not think that I can say very much about the progress of the talks. It is, I am glad to say, the fact that there are to be talks between the Indonesian and Malaysian Governments. The part which we shall play has yet to be considered, but we are anxious to do anything that we can to bring confrontation to an end on terms acceptable to both parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consideration he has given to seeking United Nations assistance in South Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the House on 16th May, I have asked by noble Friend Lord Caradon to discuss with the Secretary-General the acceptance of the United Nations resolutions by the Government of the Federation and their invitation to the Secretary-General to appoint an observer to attend the conference to be convened by the Federal Government.

Failing any firm international arrangements to guarantee South Arabia's frontiers, will the British Government be prepared to help withstand a confrontation there in 1968, in the way that was done for Malaysia?

The House knows what the Government's views are with regard to any defence agreement with South Arabia. What is to be both hoped and expected is that there will emerge from the conference to be convened by the Federal Government a stable form of Government and a secure future for Southern Arabia.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered asking the United Nations to delineate the boundaries between the Yemen and the Federation of South Arabia, and to have observers there during the very dangerous situation which is likely to arise following on the creation of a kind of power vacuum resulting from the withdrawal of British troops from this part of the world?

Not at this stage. As I said, our representative in New York is to discuss the matter with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is possible that the kind of development which the noble Lord has in mind might emerge, but it is too early to say that yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what security briefing is given to members of United Kingdom Embassy staffs before taking up appointments in Iron Curtain countries; and what is the ratio of numbers of United Kingdom diplomatic staff in Iron Curtain countries to the numbers of diplomatic staff from those countries in the United Kingdom.

All members of the Diplomatic Service before being posted to the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe with Communist Governments are given a full briefing which includes a course covering all aspects of security.

The ratio of diplomatic staff between the United Kingdom and these countries is approximately 3:4. If non-diplomatic staff are added the ratio becomes approximately 2:3.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with Iron Curtain countries about diplomatic privileges for their embassies' staffs in the United Kingdom.

My Department is in constant touch with the embassies of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe about matters arising from the provisions of diplomatic immunity.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little further consideration to this, bearing in mind that, since the Russians have never made a very clear distinction between diplomacy and espionage, the situation at the moment is just a little unbalanced in favour of potential enemy countries?

Espionage is quite a different matter. On the question of providing diplomatic immunities, we are anxious, as the hon. Member knows, to safeguard the position of our own people in the embassies in Communist countries, and this has to be done on a basis of reciprocity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the fee paid to Mr. M. Foot for writing the History of the "Special Operations Executive in France", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office; what were the terms of the contract; and what agreements were made about the time to be spent on this work.

Mr. Foot was paid a fee of £4,761 5s. 10d. Between November, 1960, and December, 1962, when he produced the first draft, he was engaged full time on the book. His subsequent work was on a part-time basis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Foot has stated publicly that pressure of work and other contracts affected his work in this connection? Is is not unfortunate that an official history of the war, presumably intended for posterity, should be written under some pressure of time, especially in view of the painful controversies which have arisen?

The facts which I have given to my hon. Friend about the time that Mr. Foot spent on the book are an adequate answer as to the careful scholarship that he gave to it. This view is confirmed by the fact that the book has, generally, been well reviewed by serious reviewers.

May I ask what Mr. Foot received for his part-time contribution in view of the fact that normally people who are engaged in writing also receive a commission from the publisher on the book when published?

Mr. Foot was paid £1,800 a year during the two-year period that he worked full time on the book. He also received £300 on completion of the first draft, and £600 for his subsequent work on the book. The arrangements made with Mr. Foot for a fee to be paid rather than an arrangements involving royalties is the normal arrangement for official historians.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken since last February to obtain a measure of agreement with the Hungarian Government over the Hungarian repayment of bonded debts.

Further discussions with the Hungarians have taken place since last February and are continuing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people in this country are gradually beginning to feel that the Iron Curtain countries want to become more friendly with us? Is he aware that militating against that, especially in the City, and amongst the bondholders, is the irritant of the non-settlement of these debts? Could he not let us know a little more about this, so that many people who feel that Parliament should be dealing with this matter rather than it being dealt with through secret diplomacy, could know where we are?

I understand the hon. Member's feelings that this is taking a long time, but it is not uncommon for discussions of this nature to last over a long period. I regret that I cannot give more details at the moment. The talks are confidential and it is really in the interests of the people he has represented in this House that I should not say more at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Europe remains part of Her Majesty's Government's policy; and what steps he is taking to bring it to a successful conclusion.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 12th May.

Will my right hon. Friend consider starting discussions between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers so that Labour Party policy can be implemented? Does not he think it time that we had a Socialist foreign policy in this respect?

My hon. Friend will remember that part of our party's policy is firm support of N.A.T.O. and that we could not make progress on a matter like this except in concert with our allies. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to seek better understanding between East and West both on these and other matters. I have been engaged in exchanges with Eastern European countries which have this in mind.

I must not go into the implementation of the Labour Party's policy, but is not the fallacy in the proposal of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) that Germany is covered by medium- and long-range nuclear weapons far outside any area of possible disengagement, and unless there were conventional thinning out at the same time the balance of military strength would be seriously upset?

The right hon. Gentleman may remember that we have explained in previous statements on this matter that arrangements for a nuclear-free zone must be with the consent of the countries concerned and must not be such as to upset the military balance in Europe. But I do not take so negative a view of the matter as he does.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has to support and encourage moves to establish a dialogue between East and West Germany.

Her Majesty's Government have noted with much interest the recent exchanges between the West German Social Democratic Party and the East German Communist Party, S.E.D. They hope that if the proposed meetings between the two parties take place they will lead to progress on the path to reunification and to increased freedom of movement and of information throughout Germany.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will say a few words on the lines of his reply to me to Chancellor Erhard when he comes to this country?

The Answer which I have given is now public knowledge and expresses the view of the Government about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the anti-democratic views expressed by the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, he will now withdraw British diplomatic personnel from that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now withdraw recognition from the Saigon regime, on the grounds that it is unstable, not in control of most of South Vietnam, unrepresentative of the Vietnamese people and entirely dependent on money, arms and military, naval and air forces supplied by a foreign Power.

No, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that, leaving aside any material resources, the moral and spiritual resources of Britain could be better devoted than to serving the cause of this squalid cardboard oriental Hitler?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's last words. The Question which he asked me was whether we would withdraw diplomatic personnel, that is to say, break off diplomatic relations with a country, because of anti-democratic views expressed by its Prime Minister. If we took the view that we should break off diplomatic relations with a country because the members of its Government expressed what we regarded as anti-democratic views, it might reduce international relations, but it would not improve them.

But if the reasons adduced in Question No. 19 are not sufficient to withdraw recognition, is not the fact that this gentleman has now upset even his American patriots by starting war on the Buddhists, burning their sacred temples and slaughtering their priests, a reason for withdrawing recognition; or is there no limit to the Government's supine iniquity?

My hon. Friend urges withdrawal of recognition on the different ground of what he claims is the instability of the Government and their lack of control of their country. We have to notice, however, that this Government is the only body claiming to be a Government in South Vietnam. I should have thought that the improved stability of this regime and the conduct of elections, as is now proposed, was the objective for which those of us who want peace in this country should work. I do not think that it would be helped by the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Would the Foreign Secretary affirm that we should strengthen rather than weaken our missions in the difficult circumstances in this country?

We certainly want to he as well informed as possible of developments there. But I think that we are.

Will the Foreign Secretary consider taking the views of the Law Officers on the many points of international law which arise out of the Vietnam war?

I will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, he will seek to secure international supervision of the proposed elections in South Vietnam.

We would, I am sure, all welcome internationally supervised elections throughout both North and South Vietnam. At present, however, they are impossible in the North and the elections in the South are part of a programme agreed by the various political and religious groupings in South Vietnam. I hope this process will lead to the first steps towards constitutional rule.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are doing and will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that these elections do take place as has been promised?

Yes, so far as we can influence the course of events there, our wish would certainly be that those elections should take place.

Could the Foreign Secretary, looking at the turmoil in South Vietnam, give the House some idea how he visualises the ultimate future of that country? Is it to be unified? Is it to be independent? Can we know what is in his mind?

I do not think I can really do that in answer to a supplementary question, but if the hon. Member would will the statements I made in April and the latter part of last year he will see generally how I hope and believe the future of that country should be developed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the policy of privately working for peace while publicly supporting the war in Vietnam to prevent the continuation and aggravation of that war, he will now abandon that policy and oppose United States military intervention in Vietnam as a violation of the United Nations Charter.

I do not contemplate any change in our policy, which is based not on supporting the war but on bringing it to an end by negotiations.

In view of the long-continued failure of these alleged attempts to bring about peace while publicly supporting the war, does not my right hon. Friend recognise that this policy has failed and is proving morally ruinous to this country? Will he not change it?

I am surprised that my hon. Friend should use the words "alleged attempts" at negotiations. The efforts which the British Government have made to get negotiations on this matter are well known. It is true that they have so far failed, and it is perfectly clear where the responsibility for that failure lies——

In Washington.

—but I do not believe that is a reason for giving up attempts to bring this war to an end by negotiation.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government still support the bombing of North Vietnam by the American Air Force and whether they have sought to impose any limits on that bombing in the last few weeks apart from the earlier limitation the Government sought to the bombing about Hanoi and Haiphong?

The position there is as it has been, and what we want to see is the, end of all military activity by both sides in this war, but I do not believe that it is right, while one side refuses negotiations, to tell the other side that they should refrain from certain military measures. As to the extent of the bombing, we have been informed and are still informed by the United States that if there were any change in their policy in that respect we should be consulted first.

As our long-term line of policy in this part of the world must be to establish independent, neutral, nonaligned countries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a contribution to the holding of peace talks if the United States Government were to declare that this was their long-term objective?

Yes, I think that is a reasonable suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what cooperation exists between the British Advisory Police Mission in Saigon and the United States Military Police.

None, Sir. I have previously made clear to my hon. Friend that the mission is concerned with the advice and training of the Vietnamese civil police.

To what authority in Saigon is this British Mission responsible? Is it not a fact that the police who are now breaking up the Buddhist demonstrations in Saigon have been trained by British officers who are paid with money that comes from the British taxpayer?

This mission is responsible to our Government. Its task is the advice and training of Vietnamese civil police. It is a small mission. Its advice is not always followed, but I believe that its influence is valuable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects were killed or wounded in the shooting affray in the streets of Saigon on 10th May.

None, Sir.

I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that Answer, but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether this incident in which soldiers machine-gunned women and children after having, as their own officers said, panicked, makes him more than ever proud of the unfailing support which he gives at least publicly to the American military effort in Vietnam?

I think that my hon. Friend's words misrepresent the Government's policy. Our policy throughout has been to preserve peace—[Interruption.]—and, I would remind my hon. Friend, to reach peace by negotiation, and what started this incident was the explosion of a land mine which killed a large number of innocent civilians. I do not think that anyone would wish to defend that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations on the problem of nuclear sharing within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in discussions with allied governments on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet reached a common position among the 14 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, other than France, for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting in June.

I have been discussing with a number of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments the problems raised by recent French moves in N.A.T.O. Discussions amongst the 14 members of N.A.T.O. concerned are continuing. These matters are due to be considered at the meeting of Ministers of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels at the beginning of June.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his noble Friend the Minister of State responsible for disarmament has said very recently that schemes for a joint nuclear force present an almost insuperable obstacle to any agreement for the banning of the proliferation of nuclear weapons? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the Government's proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force?

I do not accept the Hon. Gentleman's paraphrase of my noble Friend's views. The Government's proposal for an Atlantic Nuclear Force still lies on the table, and we are ready to look with an open mind at the problem of dealing with the question of nuclear reorganisation.

Would the Foreign Secretary advise the House on the broad political principles on which he is looking to the reorganisation of N.A.T.O., and specifically would be say what arrangements he is making to ensure the security of the allied forces in Germany in the sad event that the logistic supports coming through France were to cease to be available?

The principles on which we are approaching this matter are, first, that we want to come to satisfactory arrangements with the French, despite their decision, to continue to be associated with the alliance; secondly, we believe that the Organisation itself should remain integrated and be modernised and streamlined; thirdly—and this is a very important principle—we believe that one of the main points of doing this is not simply to look backwards to the kind of rôle which N.A.T.O. played in the past, but to look forward in a search for a political solution with the Communist world.

Can the Chancellor of the Duchy say why he transferred my Question to the Foreign Secretary and did not let me know that he was doing so? Will he in future answer Questions on this subject at No. 35 on Mondays? Is he quite clear that it would be a great mistake in our negotiations for the future of N.A.T.O. to do anything which may make it harder for this country to accede to the Common Market if and when the opportunity arises?

I do not think that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question arises at the moment. On the first part, I am sorry if he did not receive notice of the transfer. I certainly understood that I had sent him notice personally. The fact is that Questions relating to my responsibilities within the Foreign Office go, in the first instance, to the Secretary of State. Questions relating to my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy go down in the normal place, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what approaches have been made to the South African authorities recently over recent kidnapping and other illegal action by South African security forces in the British Protectorates in southern Africa.

None, Sir. I am not aware of any recent cases of the kind described in the question.

Is my right hon Friend aware that special branch people from South Africa go into the Protectorates to intimidate and to harass refugees from the South African régime? Would not he agree that this Government and this country have a moral responsibility to give adequate protection to those people from South Africa who are fleeing from the racialist tyranny existing there?

I agree about our responsibility for people who are our citizens and British Governments have always sought to carry this out. The last occasion on which there were cases involving people from the Protectorates was very nearly two years ago. But we are, of course, constantly vigilant about this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made for the visit of 20 Russian teachers to this country; and if, in particular, he will cancel that part of the visit which involves the Holborn College of Law, Language and Commerce, where Mr. Gerald Brooke formerly lectured.

The teachers have come to Holborn College under the Anglo-Soviet Cultural Agreement. Arrangements were made a year ago in consultation with the Department of Education and Science. In view of Mr. Brooke's connection with the college, the college authorities were consulted before the arrival of the teachers. They agreed that the course should be held as previously planned.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think this is an example of rather tactless rubbing of salt into wounds, and, in any event, whether he agrees with that or not, will he and his right hon. Friend now make representations to the Russians that their point has been fully made, and that, really, an act of clemency would do more to contribute to cultural relations than anything else?

There are other Questions on the matter raised by the hon Gentleman in the second half of his supplementary question. Of course, we are continually pressing this matter on the Russians. On the point we feel that by far the best way to bring home to ordinary Russians the feelings of repugnance of the ordinary citizens of Britain about this is to allow them to rub shoulders with them in a British college.

While not disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he does not think that this will be regarded abroad as an extraordinary example of national masochism? Did not the Foreign Office give any advice at all on this matter?

I do not agree with the hon. Member and his generous first clause seems utterly to contradict the second half of his question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make further representations to the South African Government about the case of Michael Dingake, in view of the fact that the South African police officer who carried out the illegal arrest in Rhodesia admitted in court that he knew at the time that Dingake was in possession of a valid Bechuanaland passport.

Her Majesty's Ambassador made further representations on 16th May to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pretoria.

Have any replies been received to those representations?

No. Not yet.

Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind, what anyone who has recently visited Bechuanaland will be aware of, that this is one of the incidents which causes the most concern to people in that Protectorate, and that it is absolutely essential that the Government should stand fast in protecting the rights of our citizens there?

Yes. I take my hon. Friend's point. We are very vigilant to do everything we can to protect our citizens.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the incorporation of the former Danzig Free State in Poland; and to what extent that policy allows for revision of the status of that territory at a peace conference with Germany;

(2) how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to renegotiate the Soviet-Polish border across former East Prussia at a peace conference with Germany.

Her Majesty's Government's attitude is based on the Potsdam Agreement under which, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier, the former German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers including the free city of Danzig and that part of East Prussia not placed under Soviet administration were placed under Polish administration.

But is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Potsdam Agreement stipulated that it was to be the western frontier of Poland whose final delimitation was to be contingent upon a peace conference with Germany and that neither of the territories mentioned in these Questions lies to the west of Poland?

I think none the less that the answer I have given does set out the Government's view on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to broaden the base of entry into the administrative class of the Foreign Office and to the Diplomatic Service.

We are very keen to broaden the base of entry to the Diplomatic Service. This will only happen if more good candidates apply. Lack of knowledge of what the Diplomatic Service has to offer has been the greatest problem in the past. During the past year contacts with universities have expanded and I hope that, with wider knowledge of the opportunities, candidates of the right standard will come forward in increasing numbers from all universities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proportion of the intake from public schools and from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge of some 75 per cent. of the total since 1945 is unsatisfactorily high? Will he give an assurance that in each of the next five years he can cut down intake from these sources to not more than one-third in each year, to encourage applications from other sources?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that we must have regard to trying to recruit people best fitted for the job. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think the trouble has been that it has been widely believed in the past that only candidates from the older universities would be successful, and that, therefore, there was an unwillingness among candidates from the newer universities. As he knows, I have been striving to break that vicious circle by increasing our contacts with the newer universities, and I hope and believe that we shall have an increased number of applications from the newer universities and be able, thereby, to get an intake which is both of the right quality and more representative of the nation as a whole.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many candid lies came forward during the last five years from the older—provincial universities to the Foreign Office?

Not without notice, I am afraid.

While widening the field of applicants, as the right hon. Gentleman has said he will, will he none the less make sure that the best candidates among those who come forward get accepted into the Service?

It is our aim to accept the people who are really fitted for the job, and the best among those who apply. But it is not a healthy state of affairs if, with the growing number of universities in the country, it is not realised in some of those universities what are the opportunities in the Foreign Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose at the next General Assembly of the United Nations a resolution for the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, and move that this matter be regarded as a procedural question requiring acceptance by a single majority vote.

Her Majesty's representative has for the last few years voted in favour of a resolution to seat the Chinese People's Republic. As there has been no lack of sponsors, I do not consider that there is any need for Her Majesty's Representative to move such a resolution. On the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to the then hon. Member for Ashfield on 15th November, 1965.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the peace of the world may rest on the entry of China into the United Nations, and that that entry should take place sooner rather than later?

That is something that we have said on many occasions and shall go on saying.

As the admission of China into the United Nations is so dependent on Taiwan, could the Foreign Secretary say what the present policy of the Government is on that question?

It would be better if the hon. Gentleman put down a Question on that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter to be decided is not China's membership of the United Nations, since China is a member? It is simply a question of the credentials of her delegates, if and when the Government of Peking send them. Is not that a matter to be settled by a simple majority?

If one interprets the word "China" strictly, it is true that China is a member of the United Nations. As my right hon. Friend says, it is a question of which Government represents China. But I do not think that one can maintain, particularly in view of the position of Taiwan, that it is purely a procedural matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery has been established to ensure that the sales policies to be adopted by the proposed head of defence sales take into account the possible political consequences of these sales and conform to the current policies and proposals of Her Majesty's Government in relation to disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assistance he is giving to the newly appointed arms salesman to sell arms in foreign countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps we will take to ensure that the activities of the armaments salesman and their consequences conform to Her Majesty's Government's disarmament policies.

Arrangements exist for reviewing the political and other factors involved in the formulation of arms sales policies. Her Majesty's Government are committed to complete and general disarmament, but until positive measures to this end can be taken by international agreement it is in our interests to maintain our share of the arms market.

I would carefully consider any proposals made by the Head of Defence Sales for improving sales methods involving the Diplomatic Service.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the appointment of a Head of Defence Sales has caused much resentment on this side of the House and among our supporters in the country? Is he further aware that the appointment will undermine the functions of the Minister for Disarmament, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to reconsider the entire matter?

It is not right to say that the appointment undermines the work of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Disarmament. We are engaged in trying to get disarmament by international agreement. It does not follow that, failing such agreement, we should deny ourselves all access to arms markets.

Is not our most formidable competitor in the arms sales racket the United States of America? Is the arms salesman going to follow the idea outlined in the speech of the Prime Minister in Washington, that we will knock hell out of the Americans? Is that going to be the procedure in every embassy throughout the world, competing with people who are supposed to be our greatest allies?

No, Sir. The position is as I described, that until we can get a widespread measure of disarmament by international agreement, it is reasonable that this country should have a share of the arms market. That is the purpose of this appointment.

Is it not a fact that the sale of arms to one country often induces its neighbours to place orders in competition, thus encouraging the arms race? Are there not signs that that is already happening, for example, following the deal with Saudi Arabia; so that what is good for the arms manufacturer is bad for peace?

My hon. Friend will notice that I said in my Answer that arrangements exist for reviewing the political and other factors involved in the formulation of arms sales policies. The point that he has mentioned is one of those political factors.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he were to give way to the argument of his hon. Friends, it would mean complete capitulation to the Americans? Would he not also agree that, however adequate our arrangements may appear to be, they are still nothing like sufficient to match the actions of the Americans, which sometimes go well beyond what many people regard as fair?

I will not accept the last part of that supplementary question. I never regard with enthusiasm questions from any part of the House which seem to be designed to create between us and the Unites States.

Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of how many British soldiers have been killed since 1945 with British arms that we have sold to people who later entered into hostilities with us? Can he calculate from that the average value of exports per British soldier killed so as to persuade us that the balance of the argument lies in favour of continuing this dirty trade?

My hon. Friend will know that I cannot give him a statistical answer in the form in which he put his question, and I do not think that he really expects me to. He must ask himself this question. Is it his view that, in a world which has not yet achieved international agreement on disarmament, we should not sell arms at all?

Yes, that is my view.

That may be his view, bat I do not think that he has thought oat the implications of that sufficiently; and it is not the policy of the Government.

Since the case for this country not selling arms abroad in the interim phase pending comprehensive disarmament is obviously stronger if we can feel satisfied that, if we do not sell those arms, no one else will either, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any other nations and, if so, which, whatever their political ideologies, have a self-denying ordinance about the sale of armaments which they are in an economic position to sell?

Speaking without certainty, to the best of my belief, I do not think that there is any nation which does that.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important and significant things that this country might do as a contribution towards eventual peacemaking is to spend money on research into what the alternatives are for those people now engaged in the defence industries, so that they might know in good time what other work is available for them should peace break out?

My hon. Friend knows that in the Foreign Office we do conduct studies of that kind and of other problems affecting disarmament.

In view of that highly unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter again at the earliest convenient opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has resulted from the Government's discussion with the allies in Western European Union of the recommendations in paragraph 3, page 3, of Document 354 of the Western European Union Assembly to evolve a common European approach to the problems of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other international problems.

The Council of W.E.U. has forwarded a reply to this recommendation to the Assembly. I am circulating it in the Official Report.

I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy has been able to take action, because Western European Union will be meeting in a fortnight's time. Will he continue to urge on the other Governments in Western European Union the importance of taking early action on the recommendation of the Parliamentarians of the Six and Britain, in view of the importance of the reconstruction of N.A.T.O.?

We support the need for close and continuous consultation laid down in the recommendation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to attend the W.E.U. meeting and speak in that sense.

As the Order Paper is always full of Questions on the reconstruction of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and as it will govern the security of Western European Union for many years to come, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on it, I would suggest, shortly after the Ministerial Council meeting in Paris?

I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding an application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to probe the French Government's attitude towards British membership of the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the statements by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 26th April and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st April.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a decision is made to withdraw from E.L.D.O. it will seriously retard the acceptance by the European nations of the welcome decision by Her Majesty's Government to join the European Economic Community? Will he, therefore, oppose any such breach of the agreement with E.L.D.O.?

I am sorry, I gave the hon. Gentleman the Answer to the wrong Question. I thought that I was answering Question No. 30.

The Answer was to Question No. 30. B>I think that the supplementary question was on the wrong Question.

On a point of order. My supplementary question was to do with Britain joining the E.E.C., and was very much related to Question No. 30, and indeed to the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question and the answer to that is that that is really another Question, which is on the Order Paper.

On a point of order. The Minister is avoiding my question.

Order. The Minister can avoid a question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of confusion sums up very well his Government's policy on Europe? Can we once and for all have a clear answer? We have had statements from the First Secretary of State, from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and from his right honourable self. Do the Government wish to join the European Community, or not?

I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and any confusion was on his side, as it turns out, and not mine. As to the substantive point, we have stated the position. We are ready and willing to enter the E.E.C., provided that there are proper safeguards for essential British interests.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I preferred his original Answer, namely, that he had nothing to say? The less he says about this the better.

Now that some Ministers have made the Government's policy clear on their determination to enter the E.E.C., does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread doubt in this country as to the terms which the Government are trying to obtain, particularly with regard to agricultural policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a clear and considered statement as to the terms which the Government are trying to obtain in relation to the E.E.C.?

I think that the position of the Government, as I have given it, has been carefully considered. I think that it is the right position at this stage of our probing operations, and I am going to stick on that.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise and reiterate the Government's commitment to the eventual economic and political unity of the whole of Europe? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the entry of Britain into the E.E.C. would indeed be a powerful step in that direction?

The Government see great advantages for Britain, for Europe, and for the world in a wider Eupropean Economic Community, provided that it safeguards essential British interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common wealth Mission on Vietnam.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this subject in reply to Questions on 1st March.

Are the members of the Mission still in touch with each other, and have they recently been considering any possible action?

They have not recently been considering any possible action, but if the opportunity arose I trust that the Mission would be able to perform the task which we had in mind when it was formed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many casualties have been sustained by military and civilian personnel in the last three years in Aden.

In South Arabia, which includes Aden and the Protectorate, during the last three years the, military casualties have been 74 killed 508 wounded and the civilian casualties have been 133 killed and 318 wounded. I am giving fuller details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is sufficient strategic value in the retention of this base to justify this substantial number of casualties among military and civilian personnel? Ought not we to take im mediate steps, if at all practicable, to clear out of this place?

This represents a tragic loss of life and damage to human life of both British civilians and citizens of Saudi Arabia, and I think that my right hon. Friend is right in taking from this that it indicates a substantial reluctance in the community in that part of the world to see a British base continue, and it was partly on these grounds, as well as on the grounds of our strategic decisions, that we took the decision we did.