asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Yemenis have been deported from South Arabia, and why.

Four hundred and sixty-two during 1965 and 330 up to 31st October this year, for various criminal acts and other offences against the law.

Will the Government continue to try to ensure that birds of passage from the Yemen do not disturb the peace of Aden? As the Yemen is the key to the security of Aden, will the Government consider raising in the Security Council as a threat to peace the U.A.R.'s repudiation of its engagement to quit the Yemen?

The second suggestion would not be a useful thing to do at the moment. As for the first, there is another Question about what we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the arrangements to be made for the security and territorial integrity of South Arabia after independence.

When South Arabia becomes independent, it will, like every other independent country, be entitled to the protection of the United Nations Charter.

In the meantime, we are giving the Government of the Federation of South Arabia substantial amounts of additional financial aid to strengthen their armed forces in readiness for independence.

Will the Government go further than that and give an undertaking that it is not their policy to see that both ends of the Red Sea are dominated by the U.A.R. backed by the U.S.S.R.? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that air and other assistance will be given to South Arabia to maintain its independence?

No, I do not think so. What we are doing and what we are to do after independence and what should be done is to enable these people to build up their own defence forces.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the key to the security of South Arabia is that it should have an air force which it is capable of operating itself? Is he not aware that it is almost impossible to create that before 1968, which is the date the Government have given for withdrawal? Will he therefore extend the date, at any rate from the point of view of keeping a training mission there?

No, Sir. It is quite right—and should be defended—that independence in cases like this should come as quickly as can be properly arranged. We think that 1968 is the right date for independence and that we should not encourage any ideas that it will be changed. In the meantime, it is for us to help all we can so that these people can look after themselves thereafter. The aid which we are giving is very substantial, much more than we have hitherto been giving, to help them to build up their forces, which will include an air component, to be as large as they would be able to sustain.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that between now and 1968 it is totally impossible for the Federation to build up armed forces which would then be in a position to resist Egyptian attack? Can he tell us whether any foreign Governments have expressed anxiety to Her Majesty's Government about the dangerous consequences of Britain's rapid withdrawal?

We get far more pressures to end what is regarded as evidence of our colonialism than we do the other way round. I happen to disagree very strongly with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) about this. I think that we should encourage people to prepare themselves for independence and not seek to discourage them from it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for associating the United Nations with South Arabia's progress towards independence in 1968.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the constitutional arrangements for the independence of the South Arabian Federation in 1968.

We are trying to reach agreement on the composition of a United Nations mission to South Arabia. We hope that this mission will help us to work out with all concerned constitutional arrangements for bringing South Arabia to independence by 1968.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and hope that he will pursue this question. Would he not agree that a U.N. presence, perhaps consisting of neutral Arab nations such as the Lebanon and the Sudan, would have a genuine benefit both in spotlighting terrorism in Aden Colony and making this an international question, leading to a peaceful solution in 1968?

Without commenting on what the membership might be, I have been discussing it with the U.N. when I was there. I have seen my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, very recently and it has been discussed with member nations of the Committee of 24. Everyone is aware of my anxiety that an acceptable membership should be arrived at as quickly as possible.

While fully recognising the difficulty, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say with whom the United Nations will negotiate over Aden?

For the moment, they are negotiating with us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the severe restrictions on Gerald Brooke.

I raised the question of Mr. Brooke's continued imprisonment when I talked to Mr. Gromyko in New York on 8th October. I have not yet received a reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country consider that, whether Brooke was guilty or not, the manner in which the Russians are placing restrictions on him is most unpleasant? When he visits Moscow, will he raise this matter again with the Russian authorities?

I have left the Russian authorities in no doubt about my view on this subject and my hon. Friend may assume that I will take every opportunity to raise it.

Can a more comprehensive statement be made on this tragic case even before the right hon. Gentleman goes to Moscow on 27th November? There is a thread of calculated cruelty running through the detention of Gerald Brooke about which the House ought not to remain unconcerned.

That is absolutely right, and I hope that the Russian authorities will take note of what has been said. The hon. Gentleman may assume that I will lose no opportunity of pressing it home.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have been informed of the concern felt in Great Britain at a possible United States invasion of North Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response he has received from the United States of America and the Soviet Union to his proposal for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official discussions with President Johnson and Mr. Gromyko about war and peace in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the United States Government to his proposal that there should be free elections in North and South Vietnam within a period of two years.

As the House knows, many of these Questions were the subject of discussions which I recently held in the United States with President Johnson, Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gromyko and others and also with Mr. Pearson and Mr. Martin in Ottawa.

As the House has now heard, I shall very soon be visiting Moscow to see Mr. Gromyko again. In all this, my main concern is to see what I can do to help bring about in the first place an end to the bloodshed and then help promote a solution in Vietnam. I am sure that the House will understand if I ask permission to avoid further comment at this stage, since to do so might well prejudice the interests we all have in mind.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the tone of that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the Americans seem hell-bent on escalating the war in Vietnam? Can the Foreign Secretary say that in his negotiations about this matter he will not fall over backwards to take one particular side in the civil war now taking place in that country?

I certainly have no intention of imitating my hon. Friend in doing exactly what he has just described. I do not agree with the opening part of his question but it was exactly that kind of comment which I thought it would be unwise to make before I go to Moscow.

I respect the wish of the Foreign Secretary not to comment on matters that he will be negotiating or discussing in Moscow, but would he not agree that comments of the kind that we have just heard—unfair and one-sided—attacking the United States coming from the British House of Commons can do nothing but harm?

Is it not the case that the United States has already invaded the southern part of Vietnam and is it not therefore within the range of possibility that she might invade the northern part? Would my right hon. Friend keep that in mind? Can he say if he has made any representations to the United States about this possibility?

May I invite my hon. Friends to bear in mind that what is most needed here is not words that seem agreeable to us, whether they are right or wrong, but getting an end to the bloodshed in Vietnam?

While congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his peace initiative, may I ask whether he thinks that it would now be useful for him to send a British mission to Hanoi, to see if he can secure co-operation there with his aims?

I think that I had better be allowed to have my visit to Moscow first.

My right hon. Friend cannot stop criticism in relation to this matter, because it concerns the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am asking a question. Would he not agree that while we are associated with American action, in the way we are at present, his chances of success are not very great?

I do not agree. I do not think that my hon. Friend could be very much more wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures recently taken by Spain against the constitutional position of Gibraltar, its citizens, industries and amenities; and what steps he has taken during the last two months to protect Gibraltar and its integrity in relation to Great Britain and the British Commonwealth.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Spanish Government concerning the continuing restrictions imposed on movement along the boundary with Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the Spanish threat to Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what information he has about changes in the restrictions imposed by Spain on the free movement of persons and goods between Gibraltar and Spain, by way of increase or reduction, respectively;

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Spanish Government on Gibraltar.

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

There is nothing I can yet add to the full statement and answers to Questions which I made on 31st October. The position was further very fully set out in the White Paper which I laid before the House on 3rd November, and arrangements have been made, I understand, for a debate later this week when all these matters can be gone into in some detail.

Does the Minister realise that his Answer does not carry the matter any further? Can he say what steps he has taken, or will take, to enable him to make sure that he will preserve the integrity of the British Commonwealth as a peace-making instrument in the case of Gibraltar?

What we have proposed to do is the right course to take. I am aware that there are some different views about this. These can be argued and debated in the debate on Thursday, and I am sure that it would be better done then rather than by way of question and answer today.

Would the Foreign Secretary agree, with regard to the restrictions on the frontier, that one essential pre-condition for the reference of this case to the International Court would be that there should be no further escalation of restrictions, otherwise any kind of agreement or settlement in the International Court would be impossible?

I am pretty certain that the continuation of the kind of efforts which have been made in the past by Spain not only constitute an unfriendly act but would also, I would have thought, very adversely affect any case that Spain will put to the International Court.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the statement he has made on behalf of the Government, although somewhat belated, has nevertheless had the overwhelming support of world opinion in that we have shown the confidence that we have in international justice, and at the same time have given a sound guarantee to the people of Gibraltar, for which they, too, are very grateful?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Two of my Questions are being answered together, and perhaps I may be forgiven if I ask two supplementary questions. One refers to a requested answer from the Foreign Secretary, which has not yet been given, dealing with what are the restrictions which have been brought into force. It is not good enough——

Order. There are no special privileges. There must be a question.

Will the Foreign Secretary at least answer my Question, No. 18? With regard to No. 30, is he really determined, if this matter does go to the International Court and if by any mischance the verdict should go against us, to hand over the people of Gibraltar to Spain, without consulting them as to their wishes?

To deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is obviously incompatible to say that one is willing to refer the matter to the International Court and then to lay down the verdict which one would accept. On the first part of the question, there has been only one increase since the early part of this year and that was the recent down-grading of the Customs post at La Linea.

Does the right hon Gentleman's reply mean that if the verdict goes against us he would be prepared to hand over Gibraltar to Spain, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants? Is not that dealing with a free people as if they were a piece of property, rather like old-fashioned colonialism?

I must say that that question, corning from a distinguished lawyer, as well as a Privy Councillor, does make me wonder. That is not the sort of question that one should deal with, in those terms, before going to a court of any kind, let alone the International Court.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a feeling in Gibraltar that they are taking the kicks for what is basically a quarrel between London and Madrid? Can he assure the House that, if the matter does go to the International Court, he will make every effort to see that the present blockade is lifted while the matter is being considered, because it may well take two years?

I shall certainly do the latter in any case. As to taking it to the International Court, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds whether they are in favour of the rule of law in the world. Speaking for myself, I am. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may like to consult the view broadcast by the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar in early October, to his own people, in which he said that he would welcome the action of Her Majesty's Government in putting the sovereignty of Gibraltar to the test. That is what we are doing.

Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that he will make available, prior to the debate on Thursday, the preliminary draft of the special agreement for the reference of the legal issues to the International Court?

No, Sir. I said the other day that I regretted that I could not do that, unless by Thursday we have reached agreement with the Spaniards on it. We have proposed terms of reference and they will have to be agreed between us. It would be discourteous and wrong to publish them in advance.

How long is the Foreign Secretary going to wait before he receives an answer from the Spanish Government following our request that the matter should be referred to the International Court? In the event of Spain refusing this request, is it his intention to continue negotiations with the Spanish Government?

I cannot answer the second, hypothetical question. I would consider it if and when it arises. As to the first question, it is still best to go on negotiating rather than to get into the kind of situation hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to want.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards a treaty for the control of outer space activities and if he will make a statement.

I have every hope that before long agreement may be reached on a draft treaty concerning the exploration and use of outer space including the Moon and other celestial bodies.

The next discussion of the draft treaty will be by the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly later in the present session.

Are the Russians still insisting on being granted tracking facilities throughout the whole world? Will the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend raise this matter on his visit to Moscow?

Discussions are going on on various points in the draft treaty and it would not be helpful to discuss any particular one now.

I hope that the hon. Lady will give us this assurance. Since the traditional concepts of international law on this subject are based on the hypothesis of a flat earth, I hope that the draft treaty will be based upon the Copernican system.

I think that there is one thing at least which will appeal to hon. Members opposite. That is what has already been agreed by the sub-committee—the provision that celestial bodies in outer space shall not be subject to any claim of sovereignty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about progress towards an Atlantic Nuclear Force.

Discussions on nuclear arrangements within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are proceeding amongst members of the Alliance.

Has the Atlantic Nuclear Force been generally dropped in favour of consultations on the Mac-Namara basis and did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend raise this matter with the West Germans on his recent visit there?

Her Majesty's Government's proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force remain for consideration, but the immediate issue is to create machinery by which the non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. can be more closely associated with nuclear planning policy. During his visit to Bonn, my right hon. Friend discussed many subjects with the Federal German Government, including problems of disarmament.

Is this a polite way of saying that the Atlantic Nuclear Force is dead?

Answer.

No, Sir. The answer means exactly what I said.

Is it proposed to place the four Polaris nuclear submarines in an Atlantic Nuclear Force?

I think that the proposals involved in the Atlantic Nuclear Force are well known to the House. They still remain for consideration. However, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that the urgent matter is to get ahead with the present nuclear planning arrangements within N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent discussions between British and Soviet officials on advances in the methods of detecting underground nuclear tests by seismological techniques.

These talks were directed to establishing a clear understanding of the exact stage that has been reached in the use of seismic techniques in the Soviet Union and the West. I followed up these talks in Washington and we now hope to proceed to further talks with the Russians and our American allies on this subject.

Now that these talks have taken place, is it still the view of the Government that any treaty to ban underground nuclear tests must include some provision for on-site inspection?

This is obviously one of the questions which arise out of the talks and the exchanges which are now going on. I think that we had better await the outcome of the tripartite talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussion he has had with the Danish Government on Denmark's proposed entry to the Common Market.

The Danish Prime Minister called on me on 18th October. Our discussion of the international situation, which was of course confidential, naturally covered, amongst other questions, the general problem of European economic integration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he and members of his staff, including junior Ministers, have had with foreign Ministers and officials on the subject of British entry into the European Economic Community.

The most recent occasions have been the Western European Union meeting in Paris at the end of September, my visit to Bonn last week and the European Free Trade Association Ministerial meeting in Lisbon at the end of October.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to give the House any details of the nature of the discussions and consultations? For example, have representations been made to him by some of his foreign relations—speaking in a political sense—that the conditions on which Britain enters the Common Market must be that we accept the Treaty of Rome and all its implications?

Obviously the consultations which we have been having are confidential, and I cannot disclose what went on there. But our position has always been made plain. Certain problems exist, and satisfactory arrangements must be made to meet them if we are to consider the question of entry into the Market. My right hon. Friend said the other day that he will be making a statement fairly soon on the subject, and I suggest that we wait for that.

Is the anti-Common Market lobby led by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) registered with his Whips as one of the officially approved dissident groups?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Indonesian relations, in the light of the Sultan of Jogjakarta's visit to London.

The visit of the Sultan of Jogjakarta and Indonesian Ministers to London was proof of the rapid improvement in Anglo-Indonesian relations, and enabled us to hear at first hand Indonesia's plans for restoring the economy. A number of British firms are now examining with the Indonesian Government how their former links with that country could be renewed.

The improvement in relations has been further marked by the arrival of an Indonesian Ambassador in London after an interval of three years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the recent famine in the outer Indonesian islands arises not from the overall shortage of rice but rather from the lack of transport to get rice inland? Is there not a case for linking such help as we give to Indonesia to under-used capacity in Britain—for example, motor vehicles at Bathgate?

As my hon. Friend knows, Her Majesty's Government provided £1 million worth of emergency aid. Any practical suggestions which he has to make about the use of it will, of course, be carefully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries he has made into the incidents referred to in the Report on Aden submitted to him by Amnesty International; and with what result.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the representations made to him by Amnesty International regarding the treatment of detainees in Aden prison.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Swedish section of Amnesty International about the methods used by British servicemen against prisoners in Aden; and what action he intends to take.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to the special investigator he is sending to Aden to investigate allegations of maltreatment of political prisoners; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his investigation into the treatment of detainees in Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his inquiry into the allegations made against British personnel in the Amnesty report on Aden.

I have asked Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., to go to Aden as my personal representative. His terms of reference are

"to examine on my behalf the procedures current in Aden for the arrest, interrogation and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities; and to advise me whether there are any ways in which these procedures may be improved, having in mind on the one hand the rights of the individual and on the other the duty of the authorities to safeguard the community as a whole from lawless acts."

Mr. Bowen will naturally take into account the recently publicised allegations and will have full access to all detainees and persons held for interrogation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that Mr. Bowen will specifically examine the particular allegations which have been made? If so, will there be an opportunity for all those with evidence to give to submit it orally to Mr. Bowen?

As I said, Mr. Bowen has access to all detainees and prisoners and anybody else from whom he wishes to take evidence. As to the specific allegations, I have seen a good many newspaper reports about this. I have not received the full text of the reports of the representative of Amnesty International, so I cannot comment on them until I do.

Bearing in mind the tremendous row four years ago from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—including the present Chancellor of the Duchy—which I had to answer from that Box about a few canings in Aden Prison, surely these far more serious allegations warrant a little more information than that which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Why cannot he publish the report of the Red Cross and of Mr. Bowen when he returns?

But I am taking very much more direct action about this matter than the hon. Gentleman took about the issue then. I cannot publish the report of the International Red Cross, because there has been no such report from the International Red Cross to Her Majesty's Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. There have been reports on a confidential basis from the International Red Cross delegate there to the High Commissioner, and he has said —he is reported again as recently as this morning, in The Times, as saying—that it would be very damaging to that organisation's work if they were published. As to Mr. Bowen's report, I will, of course, consider publication when I see the report.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the allegation that several prisoners are held without trial? If so, how many? Can he say when the Bowen Report will be published, or give some kind of a time scale?

Mr. Bowen knows that I wish to receive the report as quickly as possible and, as I said, I have made no commitment to publish; I will consider publication when I have the report. I want to get it as soon as possible, of course, but I do not want to force Mr. Bowen against a time-table, or the report may be less than good when it comes.

The question of detaining people for periods of time without trial—or proper production, as they say—is something that gives me cause for concern, and is one of the reasons for my asking Mr. Bowen to look into the matter. But I ask the House to recognise that what I want is to make a balance between the just rights of individuals, which I would wish to preserve, and the difficulties our forces have in a period of such active terrorism in carrying out their task.

Having just returned from Aden, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will pay tribute to the very heavy duties our troops are carrying out in security work? Secondly, can he give any information concerning reports received today that those who complained through Amnesty International have not appeared before Mr. Bowen to put their case?

I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question—this is the first I have heard of it. I would regret it very much if it were true.

As to the first part, I thought that I had already done so, but I do. This is a very, very difficult exercise for people to carry out, and I am sure they do it with the utmost consideration for people. It is, of course, much easier to make an allegation of this kind than to disprove it. And anyone who gives information voluntarily almost naturally afterwards would want to assert that he was forced to give it, from the very nature of the case. I am well aware of this, and because of that I framed Mr. Bowen's terms of reference as carefully as I did.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegations by Amnesty International are not against Her Majesty's Government—they are against the investigators at the political detention centre?

I am not at all sure that they are right, even then, and until I see the report I fail to see how I or anyone else can comment on what they are alleged to have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Irish resolution in the United Nations General Assembly concerning the authorisation and financing of peace-keeping operations.

I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 31st October [Vol. 735, c. 9.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this particular Resolution would be both a most constructive and widely supported proposal for solving this very longstanding financial problem of the U.N.; and that the greatest contribution Her Majesty's Government could make to solving that problem would be by supporting that Resolution?

We very much welcome the initiative of the Irish Government in putting forward these proposals, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there are certain difficulties involved, especially for permanent members of the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take to gain the admission of China to the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to secure a change in Chinese representation in the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps he proposes to take to ensure that China now gains admission into membership of the United Nations at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action he proposes to take to secure the admission of the Republic of China to the United Nations.

The speech I made recently to the United Nations General Assembly in New York should leave no doubt that I believe that the People's Republic of China should occupy the Chinese seat at the United Nations as soon as possible. Our representative at the United Nations will vote in this sense when the question is raised.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that if we believe in universal representation we ought to regard this as a measure to be decided by a simple majority rather than as a Special Resolution, to be decided by two-thirds majority?

That raises the question whether under the Charter this is an important question or not. It is very hard to declare that it is not; yet, by not declaring that it is not, the result is as my hon. Friend says. I am thinking about that, but I am pretty sure that at the moment we should vote for China's admission and vote also as recognising that the admission would be an important matter.

But would not my right hon. Friend agree that at least a first step could be made in the direction he had just mentioned? He himself has said that he would like to pursue the course of voting for Communist China's admission to the Specialised Agencies.

There is a Question on that aspect later in the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Argentine Government to his protest relating to the intrusion into the Falkland Islands of a party of Argentine citizens, including a functionary purporting to be Governor of the Islands; whether he has received an apology and an undertaking to punish those concerned; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Written Answers on this subject given by the Minister of State on 31st October [Vol. 735, c. 13] and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on 1st November [Vol. 735, c. 59].

The Argentine Government immediately expressed their regret, and those responsible for the incident are now in custody in the Argentine.

I thank the hon. Lady for that reply, but can she, as a distinguished defender of the rights of colonial people, at least give an assurance that she does not propose to hand over the destiny of these people to the Hague Court?

There is no such suggestion at present, and we are hoping to continue discussions with the Argentine on the subject very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to obtain the release of Mr. Martin Leonard, detained in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 16th June.

Mr. Leonard is held on charges of attempted murder and being in a restricted area in Lubumbashi airport.

Her Majesty's Embassy in Kinshasa have repeatedly pressed the Congolese authorities for Mr. Leonard's release or his early trial. I have myself recently seen the Congolese Ambassador in London, who expressed his concern and who has referred the matter to his Government.

Can the hon. Lady say when Her Majesty's consul last visited the man? I have information at a date at the end of last month that in October this man was without sleep for 70 hours and without food for six days. There is no hospital. Are the Red Cross Conventions being observed? Will she look into this as a matter of urgency?

We have had regular consular access to Mr. Leonard. He himself went on voluntary hunger strike, but I am happy to say that it is now ended. We have no reason to suppose that the conditions in which he is held are unreasonable, but we are very anxious indeed that he should be brought rapidly to trial.

Would the hon. Lady consider trying to enable Amnesty to look into this case and similar cases?

There is no reason whatever for Amnesty so to do. Mr. Leonard is detained in accordance with the law on a criminal charge. There is no question of any political aspect in this.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the question of saving money on the expenses incurred by the delegation to the Council of Europe; whether he has now had his discussions with the leader of the delegation; and how much he expects to save on the near £11,000 per annum spent on this delegation.

Proposals for possible reductions in the cost of the Parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe will be discussed with the leader of the delegation at an early date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with staff catering arrangements at the Foreign Office; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. But some improvements have recently been made, and others are being pursued.

I wonder what Ministers at the Foreign Office would think if guests were invited to the Foreign Office staff canteen and were to criticise it afterwards? Would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ask his right hon. Friend whether he thinks that it was helpful to go to the United States and criticise hospitality given to him there?

I have said that I am not satisfied with the catering arrangements inside the Foreign Office for the Foreign Office staff, though I must say that there has been an effort since 1964 to bring about some substantial improvements. There has been reconstruction, and there has been an effort to provide better facilities. At the moment, the Foreign Office staff are also able to use other Government canteens in the Whitehall area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made or proposes to make to the Swiss authorities in Zürich and Geneva to trace the missing money belonging to Sempah (Holdings) Limited which has disappeared there.

None, Sir. But, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on 18th October [Vol 734, c. 14], the affairs of Sempah Holdings are at present the subject of a police inquiry. If, in the course of this inquiry, it becomes necessary to seek the co-operation of any foreign Government, we shall naturally request it.

Is the Minister of State aware that vast sums of money are being mulcted from companies in the City of London through European, and particularly Swiss, sources, and that Interpol is not working satisfactorily in the circumstances? Will he use every endeavour he can through diplomatic sources to get better co-operation with European countries?

That raises the question of the system of bank accounts in Switzerland, which is a matter of internal policy of the Swiss Government in which Her Majesty's Government could not interfere. And the question about the exchange control system should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy on limitation of the size of the West German Army under the Brussels Treaty consequent upon the withdrawal of troops from the British Army of the Rhine.

Her Majesty's Government have made no decision to withdraw troops from the British Army of the Rhine. The provisions of the revised Brussels Treaty of 1954 affecting the size of the West German Army continue to apply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the immense majority of hon. Members on this side of the House want to see an early reduction in the size of B.A.O.R. but are none the less against any corresponding increase in the size of the Federal German Army; and that this view is powerfully reinforced by yesterday's election results in Hesse? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that these views are adequately represented to the Federal German Government and all others concerned at an early date.

If those be my hon. Friend's views, I am sure that he will think that we are acting wisely in ensuring that the level of all forces in the N.A.T.O. provision in Europe shall be a matter for decision by all the N.A.T.O. countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman given an assurance that there will be no reduction or withdrawal of British troops until the N.A.T.O. survey of force levels is complete?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we should like that to happen. We have the other problem of offsetting our foreign exchange costs, which falls unfairly on us at the moment, and we are negotiating about that at the same time.

Has not my right hon. Friend initiated a new principle in this regard, when he informs the House that we cannot reduce our forces in N.A.T.O. except with the consent of all the other N.A.T.O. countries? Surely this is a new principle?

I am not necessarily against initiating new principles. As a matter of fact, this is not one. If my right hon. Friend thinks back, he will realise that it is one for which he bears some responsibility. Successive Governments have accepted the basis of N.A.T.O. and have accepted the basis of W.E.U. and the procedures that have to be gone through if changes are to be made in the force levels. In any case, since I believe in the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Alliance under which it is made, I would think that it is important to do it in this way.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, when we first agreed to place troops on the Rhine, it was clearly understood that we had the right to withdraw them if we required them for any emergency or because of the situation in this country?

I apologise if I misunderstood my right hon. Friend before. On the point that he makes, the fact that we stationed troops there in accordance with our Treaty obligations does not affect our rights, under certain conditions, to withdraw them for use elsewhere.

Is this not a W.E.U. obligation and, since the virtual defection of France from N.A.T.O., is it not tremendously important that the balance of forces in Germany should not be disturbed except by allied decision?

With the nature of the threat that we are facing, the level of forces that we need to meet it should be the outcome of very careful study. But I repeat both to this House and to those outside that the very unfair burden of exchange costs which we have carried for a long time and which no one else has carried has to be met as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government intend to start to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 12th May. [Vol. 728, c. 593.]

Have the Government changed their mind? If not, why are they being so slow about doing something?

No, Sir. When we have reached agreement on nuclear matters in N.A.T.O., that will be the time to make any necessary changes in the Nassau Agreement.

In view of the Prime Minister's frequent sneering references to the Nassau Agreement, repeated in this House as recently as Question Time last Thursday, is it not extraordinary that the Government do not think it necessary to take urgent action?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the Answer which I gave. We are engaged in N.A.T.O. at the moment in discussing various changes in the nuclear arrangements. Any change in the Nassau Agreement arises out of those, and they have to be completed first.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that subscriptions to the United Nations are now £65 million in arrears, thus threatening the future of the organisation; and what action he proposes to take at the United Nations to encourage prompt payment.

Well over half of the arrears arise from the refusal of certain countries to pay their assessments for peace-keeping operations. The General Assembly decided in 1965 not to apply the sanction in the Charter to Member States which had incurred these debts but to solve the problem by voluntary contributions. Her Majesty's Government are among those who have contributed generously and who now look to others to play their part.

Is not this a very important problem for the future of the United Nations that has to be faced squarely? Will the Government support any measures to secure more prompt payment?

We would hope to do so. We also support the proposals for economy and for streamlining the Organisation adopted last week following the report of the Committee of 14.

In view of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which was accepted by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, was it not a grave error of judgment not to enforce Article 19 and make those who are two years in arrears forfeit their vote in the General Assembly?

That is a matter of opinion, but, for the time being, we are bound by the decision of the General Assembly.

asked the Paymaster-General if he will be prepared to answer about the co-ordination of home information services.

Yes, Sir.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman in future will be less bashful about his duties? Will he say whether he had a hand in co-ordinating the information about the escape of the spy, Blake?

I shall not be any more or any less bashful than I have been in the past. I shall carry out the instructions given me by the Prime Minister which have been explained to the House over and over again. As the hon. Gentleman is so solicitous for my welfare, may I be equally so for his? I suggest that he improves his reading capacity and reflects upon what he reads.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer a Question about the information services concerning religious discrimination in Northern Ireland?

No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given. If any hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the home information services, I shall be only too delighted to answer it. The more Questions hon. Gentlemen put down, the better I shall be pleased.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an overwhelming minority of hon. Members know that he doing a grand job of work? In this connection, will he say what information he has about tape recordings of speeches made by hon. Members in Rhodesia?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to statements made to the Press by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre). His statement to the Press was on all-fours with his broadcast in Rhodesia. It was a piece of disgraceful nonsense. I do not possess any tapes. If any hon. Gentleman, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman for New Forest, cares to go to the Library, he can see in the world news service a report of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's broadcast and read for himself just how disgraceful that broadcast was.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very sharp attack has been made by the right hon. Gentleman against one of my hon. Friends. May I ask whether, in accordance with the normal courtesies of the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice to my hon. Friend?

If I could be as accurate a reader of the signs as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I should be much better off than I am. I did not know that this supplementary question was going to be asked. [Interruption.] Very good. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could have been here if he had wanted to. But I was not making a sharp attack. If he thinks that what I said constitutes a sharp attack——

rose——

Order. I was addressed on a point of order. The simple answer is that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks arose out of a supplementary question. It would have been impossible to give the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest notice of something that arose on a supplementary question.

On a point of order. Was not that clearly a planted supplementary question?

That is not a point of order.

Is it not within the immediate recollection of the House that in answering that supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman was consulting notes prepared beforehand?

If I consulted notes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."]—Further to that point of order. If any hon. Member thinks that I consulted notes he is entitled to look at them, and I pass a copy across the Table. [Interruption.]

Order. We are wasting valuable Question time.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is this object here in order?

I hope that the right. hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to deal with what is and is not in order.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I ask seriously, not as a matter of joking, whether it is really in order for the Paymaster-General to throw an object across the Chamber and for another hon. Member to retrieve it? I suggest that this is wholly contrary to the practice of the House.

In answer to the point of order, neither of the episodes added anything to the dignity of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what initiative Her Majesty's Government propose to take in disarmament negotiations, in view of the recent statement by the United Nations in United Nations document A/6301/Add 1 that in the past year there has been a reversal of the trend of the past few years in progress in the stabilisation and reduction of armed forces and military budgets.

We believe that our approach, of seeking agreement on non-proliferation and a comprehensive nuclear test ban as matters of the highest priority, is the right one. We are proceeding with persistent negotiations on the proposals already on the table.

As the proposals were American and Russian respectively, has the new initiative on disarmament, promised in the Labour manifesto of 1964 yet taken place? If it has not, is it in reserve? If it has taken place, what was it?

I should have thought that during the course of the last week or so the hon. Gentleman would have realised that my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with Mr. Gromyko, was making certain progress in these matters, which he hopes to continue when he visits Moscow and also that my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) gave another indication of the activity of Her Majesty's Government in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to abrogate the Simonstown Agreement.

None, Sir.

I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but can he say whether we are carrying out our side of the agreement? Are we supplying ammunition to South African ships built in this country, and is there any proposal to withdraw the C.-in-C., South Atlantic and his staff?

We are discussing proposals with South Africa for reductions in our provisions under this agreement which does not commit us to maintain any particular level of force, but I cannot give details about this. Subject to statements made in the past about restrictions which we thought it right to impose and about which the House knows, we are certainly carrying out our side of the agreement.

Is it not a fact that the Falkland Islands affair showed the importance of Simonstown to the Royal Navy and Great Britain?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in agreement on a nuclear non-proliferation pact within the last few months.

It is clear that the major nuclear powers are anxious to conclude a non-proliferation agreement. I am trying hard to build on this in order to achieve a treaty. But much hard negotiating still remains ahead of us.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that so long as mainland China is not in the United Nations such an agreement is highly unlikely? Will he press that view on the United States?

I would not accept the view that such an agreement is highly unlikely in those circumstances. That does not detract from what I said earlier. I think that China should be seated as rapidly as possible in the United Nations.

As the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers' meeting next month will be a crucial step towards this non-proliferation treaty, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the A.N.F. proposal, which has been an impediment towards achieving the treaty, has been withdrawn from the current proposals?

No, Sir. That remains on the table for consideration, but there are many things to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman may be sure that we are very busy on them at the moment.

Does not my right hon. Friend recall the strong objection made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition, that an international nuclear force was an insuperable obstacle to an agreement with the Soviet Union on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? Will he also bear in mind what the Soviet leaders have been saying about the impossibility of reaching agreement on these matters so long as we go on supporting the American war in Vietnam?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has mixed up the M.L.F. with the A.N.F., but he may take it that I take into account all that he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose in the Security Council of the United Nations the creation of a United Nations force in the Far East based on Singapore as a contribution to stability in South-East Asia.

We will certainly consider this when the time appears opportune. At present, there continues to be substantial opposition to the establishment of any permanent United Nations forces.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that steps be taken at the earliest possible moment to bring the question of peace and security in South-East Asia under the ambit of the United Nations, and not leave this issue to the vagaries of the policies of the great Powers?

My hon. Friend's Question concerned a United Nations force and our attitude to that was described in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 17th June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Group Captain Day and others who served in the Second World War were detained within the limits of Sachsenhausen concentration camp; and whether he will reconsider the decision not to compensate them in accordance with the Agreement signed on 9th June, 1964, with the Federal Republic of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation based on the Anglo-German Treaty of 1964 Group Captain Day and other prisoners, who were placed by the Gestapo in a concentration camp, will receive.

For reasons fully explained by Ministers on a number of occasions I regret that Group Captain Day and his companions, gallant though they were, do not come within the category of those who suffered from Nazi persecution, as defined in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964.

If it is agreed that these men were put in Sachsenhausen camp by the Nazis more than 20 years ago, how can the right hon. Gentleman be justified in saying today that they were not the victims of Nazi persecution? Is not this a very sad and deplorable position?

I did not say that. I said that they are not victims as defined in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964. That was not drawn up by me, or by us, but by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were the Government. I tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that when I first heard of this, and first heard from him, I wondered whether we were being legalistic. I went into it very carefully, but the fact is that if we were to make an exception in this case—and it would be a clear exception to what the agreement provides—there would be many other people with at least as big a claim, and many others with even bigger claims. As the amount of money would be stretched beyond all reason, I am afraid that we have to remain within the terms of the agreement.

Will my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration? Whatever may be said about my right hon. Friend, no one can accuse him of a lack of humanity or a lack of a sense of social justice. Will he have regard to the fact—and it is an inescapable fact—that these gallant men have been deprived of compensation on technical grounds? They are not asking for very much. Surely he will not allow a technicality to stand in the way of justice?

I rather wondered about that. I went into the matter very deeply, but it is not just a technicality. I assure my right hon. Friend that there are very many other people with whom I would be concerned who have an even greater claim than these gallant men. In fact the agreement, rightly or wrongly, excludes all those, and provides for certain categories to which they do not belong. In the circumstances, the money having been allocated, and final registration having been achieved, I do not see that I can do any more about it, much as I admire the gallantry and the initiative shown by Group Captain Day and his colleagues.