I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Alexander Garrow, esquire, Member for Glasgow, Pollok, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will now announce their decision on ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Political Rights of Women.

Her Majesty's Government have decided that, with certain reservations, the United Kingdom can accede to this Convention. They aim to arrange accession early next year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that her announcement will give great pleasure to this House and to all women's organisations in particular? Will she please give this matter the widest possible publicity?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what preparations have been made in his Department to assure full United Kingdom participation in the United Nations Year for Human Rights, in 1968.

In addition to the details given in my reply to the hon. Lady on 9th May, Her Majesty's Government have now offered an initial contribution of £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year which has been set up under the Chairmanship of Bishop Joost de Blank. A further contribution may be considered at a later stage. [Vol. 728, c. 16.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of nations look to Britain as an historic champion of human rights? Will she ensure that our contribution to Human Rights Year is commensurate with this traditional rôle?

Yes, I certainly hope it will be, and various appropriate actions are now under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he made to the Soviet authorities, during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, about their treatment of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

On my discussions in Moscow I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 5th December. The British Consul in Moscow saw Mr. Brooke on 9th December and reported that his morale was good. We are continuing to discuss with the Soviet Government various questions relating to Mr. Brooke's imprisonment.—[Vol. 737, c. 206.]

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his efforts in obtaining a modification of Russian policy in regard to Mr. Gerald Brooke? Will he also convey, on behalf of a number of hon. Members of this House, our thanks to the British Consul, Miss Agnes Wood, for her intelligent concern in the matter of this detention, concern which reflects great credit on the mission that she serves?

Dare I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say a word about the receipt of parcels? I know that this collides with prison regulations and may be beyond the powers of anybody even as powerful as Mr. Kosygin, but the receipt of even the smallest parcel is an unimaginable blessing to a lonely man in a Russian prison camp——

Order. This supplementary is getting rather long.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about our Consul, and I shall be delighted to convey his remarks to her. She has a very difficult job to do and it is a pleasure to hear that sort of remark.

On the question of parcels, Mr. Brooke told Miss Wood that he had received two parcels from his wife and one parcel of books from the embassy. I have a suspicion that this does, in fact, exceed what the regulations, strictly interpreted, might have allowed. But there are other things we want to do, if we can, with the Russians to get Mr. Brooke's position improved, quite apart, of course, from trying to get him released. This we shall go on doing.

Is not the recent visit by the British Consul the first that has been allowed for eight months or more? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not good enough? Do not the accepted international conventions require that the Consul should be allowed to visit Mr. Brooke regularly and frequently, and will the right hon. Gentleman press for that?

The Consular Convention has not as yet been ratified. The Labour Camp Regulations, I understand, as they stand at the moment, allow only one meeting a year. I do not think it would do us any harm—it might do Mr. Brooke some good—if we were to recognise that the Russians relented in order to allow the visit to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has had from Middle Eastern countries about Great Britain's proposed withdrawal from Aden; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on 10th November.—[Vol. 735, c. 350.]

Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the proposal to withdraw from Aden is an act of real bad faith which lets down our friends and creates a very dangerous situation in that area? If the Foreign Secretary cannot himself get there, can he give an undertaking that no British troops will be withdrawn from Aden until the last of the 60,000 Egyptians are withdrawn from the Yemen?

I do not accept the first part of the supplementary question and I am certainly against the third.

Can the Foreign Secretary say what consideration he has given to the views repeatedly put forward from these benches that some form of air defence must be provided until the South Arabian Federation can maintain its independence by its own efforts?

I believe that there are Questions later on that very point. But, as I made clear the other day to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), our proposal for helping the Federation after 1968 includes provision for an air component.

In regard to that area, would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is best to encourage the spending of money on social progress rather than on an arms race; secondly, that we support democratically elected States and not feudal sheikhdoms; and, thirdly, that we work for the United Nations to be responsible for getting peace in that area rather than our own arms?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that it is quite impossible to provide what he calls an air component which would be able to provide air defence against the Egyptians between now and 1968, and does he not realise that he is creating a power vacuum in South Arabia which will merely invite Egyptian military intervention and subversion?

I also know that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister he was very much against our undertaking to provide forces for any conceivable military operations all over the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange for the raising in the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace the existence of training camps and military and para-military missions in certain African States for the subversion of, and armed aggression against, other African States and territories, contrary to the United Nations Charter.

It is primarily for any country which considers itself threatened to raise the matter in the Security Council.

I am much obliged for that Answer, but will the right hon. Lady agree that those camps and missions exist not merely for the overthrow of régimes in Southern Africa but also the overthrow of régimes in black Africa? Is that not a real threat to peace, which Rhodesia is not?

Her Majesty's Government of course subscribe to the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States. We consider, as I said in my original Answer, that if any country considers itself to be threatened it is for it to take up the matter with the Security Council, and not for us to interfere.

Since the Government still insist that this country is still responsible for Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia is not a sovereign State, will the right hon. Lady now call upon the Government to move in the United Nations on this line?

Answer.

If the right hon. Lady is not certain what I am saying, I am asking her—

Order. Mr. Archer, Question No. 6.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now intends to publish the report of Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., relating to detention procedures in Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will no publish Mr. Roderic Bowen's Report on Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking as a result of the report supplied to him by Mr. Bowen on the treatment of detainees in Aden.

I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which persons were interviewed by Mr. Bowen during his recent investigations into the treatment of prisoners and detainees in Aden.

I have arranged for the list, which is rather long to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

What has happened to the five interrogators who were removed from Aden shortly after these allegations?

I ask my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the Arab professional organisations declined to give evidence before Mr. Bowen on the grounds that my right hon. Friend's Department had committed itself in advance to a denial of the allegations and, secondly, that certain wives of detainees were prevented from seeing Mr. Bowen? Is he still open to receive evidence on this?

I do not think that that will be supported by the list which has been made available, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads it. I suggest that he waits until he has read the list.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what investigation he made in Moscow of methods of handling files at the British Embassy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the standard of security in Her Majesty's diplomatic missions overseas; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether authentic copies of the following treaties are still in possession of the Foreign Office, namely the Treaty of Utrecht, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the Treaty of Versailles, and the Treaty of Sevres.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the disappearance of certain documents relating to the Zinoviev Affair, the Hoare-Laval Pact and the Munich Agreement.

In answering the four Questions together, I apologise for the fact that my Answer must therefore be a little longer than I normally like to give.

I have been concerned about the method of handling files in the Foreign Office and in missions abroad. Following a review which has been in progress for some time, I have instituted certain changes in procedure which will I think offer an improvement.

All the documents referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) are in the Public Record Office.

The file relating to the Zinoviev affair contains our original copy of the Zinoviev letter itself together with the texts of the final versions of the communications arising out of it which passed with M. Rakowski. It is in respect of the letter to M. Rakowski of 24th October that the file is deficient. Two copies of the letter existed, differing only in their signature. This was made plain in 1927 in the corrigendum slip to the White Paper Command 2895. We have the copy with the incorrect signature; the other, and the, operative draft, are both missing.

The Hoare Laval Agreement was never concluded but the Foreign Office working papers are in the Public Record Office. The authenticated copy of the English text of the Munich Agreement is also in the Public Record Office.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for answering a Question that I for one did not ask him. May I revert to the Question that was on the Order Paper about his investigation of a security file in Moscow during his visit to Moscow? While I accept that it is right for the Foreign Secretary to check up on sloppiness and security lapses, can he say how this matter was made public in Moscow? Is it not very much better if one is checking up on security matters to keep quiet about it?

Perhaps the hon. Member would like to read his Question again. It says nothing about security in Moscow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it does."] The Question is what investigation the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made in Moscow of methods of handling files. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the British Embassy."] What else could it be in Moscow but the British Embassy? I answered the Question in the form in which the hon. Gentleman put it down. I am quite willing to believe that he intended to put down a different Question, but I answered the one he asked and I I said that I was not satisfied. I was concerned. Having been concerned, apparently unlike my predecessors I made an investigation. I have therefore now also taken action to improve the situation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question? Would he not agree that in cases of this kind no useful purpose is served if the matter becomes public knowledge?

Anybody who is responsible for an organisation of this size, whether it is business, trade union or Government, knows that at any stage if one is to get one's views carried all the way down one must make them clear all the way down. That is what I am doing.

While we are all very concerned that there should be proper handling of the files at the British Embassy in Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that we are even more concerned about interference by the Central Office of the Conservative Party with the files in this country of the Foreign Office? While we appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the loss of these documents and are very grateful that he is carrying out an investigation at long last, may we ask him to take into account that we are very much concerned about what happened on the Zinoviev letter and the fact that Foreign Office officials may have been operating against the interests of the Government at that time? Will he make a full investigation into that matter and report to the House?

I thought that I had answered it clearly in my reply, but let me again make one thing clear. The Zinoviev letter, the copy of which came to the Foreign Office in 1924, is still there. It has never been missing, and some very fanciful stories which I read over the weekend could never have been written if the facts had been checked.

Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend undertake to carry out an investigation into allegations that the Zinoviev letter itself was a forgery, and will he extend the investigation to include the possibility of collusion in October, 1924, between the Foreign Office and members of the party opposite during that critical General Election? Secondly—

Order. There are a lot of important Questions on the Order Paper. We must be brief.

Authenticity of the Zinoviev letter does not really arise on these Questions. On the other hand, without attributing any wrong motives to anybody present today, I am not at all surprised that the Conservative Central Office thought it worth paying £5,000 for a document in 1924.

Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that this record of absolute unscrupulous villainy on the part of the Central Office of the Conservative Party, when £5,000 was paid for a forgery—these are grave disclosures—does not rest there?

One of the reasons why I have taken pains to look carefully into the way in which we handle our affairs is to see that we, unlike our predecessors, do not lose interesting documents.

Whatever may be the history of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary acquit the Foreign Office of any collusion with any political party?

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the authenticity of the letter and about what happened in those days—it is not on the Order Paper today—I shall be very happy to give him an Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to his deputy at the Council of Ministers at Strasbourg about continuing support for the Committee on Non-Represented Nations.

This is a Committee of the Consultative Assembly and it is for the Assembly itself to decide whether the Committee is still needed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dodge out of any obligations which they have to the smaller oppressed countries of Eastern Europe?

I should not wish to intervene in a matter which is the concern of the Assembly and not of the Council of Ministers.

Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Gentleman and his deputy at Strasbourg, if necessary, that what the Assembly of the Council of Europe does about these matters has nothing whatever to do with the Ministers?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Japanese Foreign Minister.

The Japanese Foreign Minister visited this country from 28th October to 2nd November. I had two most useful talks with Mr. Shiina, who also called on the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. The joint communiqué records the very friendly relations existing between Britain and Japan and our growing co-operation in the fields of diplomacy and commerce.

Will the Foreign Secretary keep up the regular series of visits which have done so much in the last five years to improve relations between our two countries, and, if he does, could he co-ordinate our efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement in the Vietnam dispute?

There are Questions about Vietnam later, and perhaps that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question could wait until then. On the first part, yes, most certainly. The next meeting is due to take place in Japan, and I look forward to it very much indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what study he has made of the letter from the Eastern Regional Officer of the United Nations Association on the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations; and what reply he has sent.

I have carefully studied the points raised in this letter. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the very full reply which I have sent.

Would it not be a major contribution to world harmony if America supported China's admission to the United Nations, and will my right hon. Friend undertake to make yet another appeal to the Americans to wake up to the fact that it is now 1966 and not 1946?

My hon. Friend must recognise from what happened at the meeting this year that the thing goes a good deal wider now than just the United States. The vote this year was altogether different from last year, which suggests that a lot of other people need to have this explained to them, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the proposals of the United States mediator, Mr. Webster, with regard to the future relationship of British Honduras and Guatemala.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm the undertaking previously given by the former Foreign Secretary that, as soon as these proposals are complete, they will be announced to the House and debated in Belize, and can he give an idea when this is likely to be?

I reaffirm the assurance given by my right hon. Friend some months ago, but it will be for the mediator to make his own report in his own time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Spanish Government to his proposal to refer the legal issues in the Gibraltar dispute to the International Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of direct Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar and current discussions at the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the Spanish Government a reply to his proposal to refer British sovereignty over Gibraltar to The Hague Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has now received from the Spanish Government about the reference of the Gibraltar question to the International Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the proposal to refer the Gibraltar question to the International Court.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the Spanish Government has notified Her Majesty's Government of their refusal to allow Gibraltar's sovereignty and related issues to be submitted to the Hague Court, he will make a statement with particular reference to continuing Anglo-Spanish talks while present frontier restrictions continue.

On 14th December, the Spanish Government informed us that they were unable to accept our proposal. Her Majesty's Government regret this negative reaction.

The Spanish documents, which also made suggestions for further negotiations, are under study in the light of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and a reply will be made as soon as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after the somewhat discourteous delay of over two months in replying to our offer, the Spanish Government have now publicly admitted the weakness of their legal case, and that this should encourage us to continue to sustain the people of Gibraltar as far as we possibly can?

Yes, most certainly; and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he has, in view of the attacks which were made on me by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends a little while ago.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the United Nations and the Spanish Government that we are ready to resume talks with Spain on any subject as soon as they withdraw their barbaric restrictions from the Spain-Gibraltar frontier?

I think that the right thing for me to do now is to say that we are considering the Spanish reply. My hon. Friend will have noted the interesting and significant resolution which was voted by the United Nations last night.

Now that Gibraltar has been undergoing a blockade for two years, what action does the Foreign Secretary intend to take to prevent this blockade being continued for another two years?

I have said that we shall support the Gibraltarians through it all, and we are doing that.

Why did the British delegate on the Trusteeship Committee vote on Saturday in favour of continuing negotiations regardless of duress?

Because the resolution, for the first time at the United Nations, so far as I recall, made clear that the interest of the inhabitants was paramount.

Is not the best way to get the restrictions on the Gibraltar border lifted to make clear to the Spanish Government that there will be no negotiations of any sort until they are lifted?

I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman.

Now that the Spanish Government have refused, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the advisability of cancelling the validity of passports to Spain?

No, Sir; I do not think that retaliation in this field will help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to explore the possibilities of establishing a Free Trade Area between the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and other European Free Trade Association and Commonwealth countries.

No, Sir. The Government's policy is to work for entry into the European Economic Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, I wish him every success in that venture, but would it not be as well to have some alternative ready in case the negotiations, unhappily, fail, and would not his hand be strengthened in the negotiations by the existence of this alternative?

As I said when I spoke in the debate on 16th November, there are other ways in which we could organise the future of Great Britain. I do not believe that any of them would be as good as this, but the hon. Gentleman may assume that we have taken account of them.

Was the right hon. Gentleman encouraged by his talks with General de Gaulle recently in view of the British application to start talks for joining the European Economic Community?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent progress to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what attempts have been made recently to negotiate a just and peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent progress towards a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, particularly in view of the recent intensification of the bombing of Hanoi.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on 12th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 11.]

Could the Foreign Secretary give the House a more detailed indication of what response his suggestions for a negotiated settlement received in Vietnam, and could he not use his influence to get the Russians to make a public statement—I emphasise the word "public"—on the issue as that might well transform the situation?

I am continuing the explorations which I undertook with both the American and the Russian Governments and, of course, elsewhere. In view of the delicacy of these talks, I hope that the House will excuse me from going any further.

Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that progress towards peace or even towards a temporary truce is assisted by the bombing of Hanoi, and, if it is not the Government's view, will he make that clear to the Americans?

I have other Questions on the subject of bombing later today.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree with the proposal made by Senator Mansfield for a 47-day moratorium of the bombing and truce in Vietnam? Would he not agree that this would help to obtain the type of settlement that he is after?

I believe that I am inhibited by the rules of order from answering on Question No. 18 points which will arise on Question No. 31.

Can my right hon. Friend say, strictly on the question of the form of negotiations, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to give unqualified support to the proposals of U Thant for the settlement of the Vietnam dispute?

I still think that, since I am engaged very closely and very much, and was indeed even last week in Paris, in talks about this, the House would really help me to achieve what it and my hon. Friend want to achieve if it excused me from public statements here today.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country find it difficult to understand how it is that Rhodesia, which has made no threat to peace anywhere in the world, has action taken against it in the form of sanctions whereas, in the case of North Vietnam, which has been not merely a threat to peace but guilty of aggression, no such action is taken by the British Government?

Mr. Speaker, you have allowed that question and so it must, therefore, be in order. But I find it very difficult to understand how a Question which asks me about what I am doing to get a settlement in Vietnam raises the question of a rebellion in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, following his talks in Moscow, he will seek to arrange an early conference with the United States, Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese Foreign Ministers in a new attempt to stop hostilities in Vietnam and make the Christmas truce permanent.

No, Sir. I am engaged in continuous efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam but, in present circumstances, I see no prospect of convening a conference of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the size of this problem and the fact that tens of millions of people all over the world are praying and hoping that this Christmas will see an end to a war, something could he gained by this? Would my right hon. Friend not further agree that Britain's rôle as a gunboat Power is now over but that she has a major contribution to make to mankind as an intermediary and peace-maker?

I am sure that we have the latter rôle. I understand that the South Vietnamese Government and their allies have already agreed to a truce not only over Christmas but also over the New Year, including the Vietnamese New Year holiday. I regret to say that there has so far been no response to this offer from the other side.

We are encouraged to hear of the part the South Vietnamese Government are playing. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if ever there was a conference of the sort called for in this Question, the South Vietnamese Government would be one of the most important parties to be represented?

That is the sort of question which would fall to be decided whenever we got a conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had, in the course of his recent visit to the United States of America, with United States Defence Secretary Macnamara regarding his official statement on the monthly average of bombs dropped in Vietnam in the second half-year of 1966; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no such discussions with Mr. McNamara.

Does not my right hon. Friend know that while he was in the United States Mr. McNamara claimed that the monthly average of bombs dropped by United States aircraft on Vietnam in the second half of 1966 surpassed the quantity of bombs dropped all over Europe and Africa during the Second World War? Will my right hon. Friend associate Her Majesty's Government with the rising volume of protest at this mass murder of civilians?

I regret and resent the continuance of this war. However, my hon. Friend makes a very big mistake in picking out one side or the other for comment in this way. In any case, I have answered his Question by saying that I have not had any such discussions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the phrase "mass murder"? Is it not a fact that the United States Air Force engaged in this war does its utmost to avoid mass murder?

The hon. Gentleman is making exactly the same mistake. The reason I want to do what I can to get this war halted, and ultimately solved, as quickly as I can is that at least I know that no war can go on without mass murder.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, from the International Control Commission regarding the facts about the bombing by United States forces in Vietnam of schools, hospitals and churches in North Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received from the International Control Commission on the United States bombing of schools, hospitals and the urban population of North Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Control Commission set up under the 1954 Geneva Agreements, what information he has received from the Commission about the bombing by United States and South Vietnamese forces of schools, hospitals, temples, and homes in North Vietnam, including residential quarters in Hanoi.

None, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that North Vietnam's sources say that United States bombing has destroyed 294 schools, 74 hospitals and 80 churches? Does he not agree that Pentagon sources say that in this respect North Vietnamese sources, when checkable, are generally found to be correct? Will he ask the United States Government to stop bombing until the International Control Commission has investigated and reported?

Of course I deplore the loss of life and I deplore it all the more if there have been civilian casualties. But the responsibility for this must rest with those who are prolonging the fighting, just as all opportunities for a just and reasonable settlement rest with them. The United States assures us, and, I am certain, properly assures us, that it is attacking only military targets. However, so long as this war goes on, this kind of thing will happen. That is why I wish that Hanoi and those who might be able to influence Hanoi would respond to the kind of initiative which I have recently made myself to both sides.

Will my right hon. Friend this afternoon make a clear public statement dissociating the British Government from the American bombing of the civilian population of Hanoi?

I do not believe that the American Government has done any such thing. I dissociate myself from those who will not use such influence as they might have to get the authorities in Hanoi to respond to the approach which I have already made.

Do my right hon. Friend's replies mean that the Government have gone back on their undertaking to dissociate themselves from the bombing of Hanoi? Is it the position that the Americans are entitled to the mass murder of civilians by their bombing in order to force them into unconditional surrender or unconditional negotiations, which would be contrary to the Charter?

If the North Vietnamese and their allies continue to infiltrate vast numbers of troops and supplies and to breach the demilitarised zone, it would be wrong to attack those trying to arrest that. But I deplore both, and I would welcome the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to bring it to an end as the most sensible thing to do.

As we have a small diplomatic mission in Hanoi, can the Foreign Secretary say whether our representative there has been allowed to inspect the site and submit a report? If American planes have done extensive damage in Hanoi, would not one have expected our representative to send a report?

The hon. Gentleman may assume that I have had reports from not only that, but other quarters. I prefer to stand on what I have said.

Returning to the main issue, why does not the Foreign Secretary as co-Chairman receive reports on just this sort of thing, and how can he act as co-Chairman without all this information?

Nothing I have said would lend any support to the idea that I do not receive reports on these things.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in an earlier statement the Prime Minister assured the House that the position of Her Majesty's Government was that it should not be the policy of the United States Air Force to bomb installations near population centres? While everybody would agree that there is an obligation on the Government of Hanoi, as on any other Government, to make peace, would he not now say that in the period at the beginning of negotiations the American Government should not bomb installations near Hanoi or Haiphong?

Not only privately as I have, but in public, the American Government has committed itself much further than anybody else on either side about what it would do to halt military action, provided that it had some idea that a reasonable response would be forthcoming. My answer to my hon. Friend is that we should all use our influence to get some reasonable response from the other side.

Mr. Ridsdale. Question No. 33.

On a point of order. When I asked a supplementary question on Question No. 18, which was answered together with my own Question No. 83, my right hon. Friend would not answer it because, he said, it would be out of order to do so as he had Questions on bombing coming. May I ask—

Mr. Driberg.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend speaks of the war effort of both sides as being roughly equal, is not that a little unrealistic? Is it not only one side which is bombing with napalm and other horrors?

Others are doing things which are horrible in their own way.

:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the West German and United States Governments about the requirement for British and United States forces on the continent of Europe and the offsetting of the foreign Exchange costs of such forces.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on 12th of December.—[Col. 44; Vol. 738.]

When assessing how much of the foreign exchange costs of B.A.O.R. is being offset, is it the intention of the Government to take into account the foreign exchange which comes to this country as a result of the presence of American forces here?

No, Sir. I believe these two things to be quite separate. As I have told the Americans, and so have my right hon. Friends, we have a deficit all over the world arising out of the share of the burden—in some ways one might say a disproportionate share of the burden—of defending world peace that we bear. Therefore, I think that anything else that happens we are entitled to set against that. The question of the offsetting of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany falls to be dealt with by itself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of us on these benches regard the offsetting agreement as utterly unacceptable as this is against the real determination that we have considered, as have others in the Government, would follow from securing an immediate reduction in these costs?

In that case, I can only think that my hon. Friend has not really looked at what has been achieved here. If one looks at the time scale in which the savings would come by any unilateral withdrawal of troops, it would not be as advantageous to us as the present agreement. Secondly, if it is, as I believe it is, my hon. Friend's desire to maintain the cohesion of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to maintain our influence in that and on the Continent, I am sure he would agree that it would be far better to do it by agreement than to do it unnecessarily unilaterally.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 9th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if there was not an offsetting of the total costs of British troops, they would be withdrawn? While we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations, may I ask whether he would not agree that a unilateral withdrawal of British troops, especially following the withdrawal of France from N.A.T.O., would considerably increase tension in Central Europe?

Whether that is true or not, it has to be understood, and I hope that it is—I explained it again last week to all our allies—that we cannot be expected to go on paying foreign exchange to meet a burden which is by no means wholly ours and is of great value to others. I should like to do this, of course, by agreement, and I hope that we can, but it must be very clear that what we have said has been that the offsetting for our foreign costs must be met. When the new German Government came into being a very short time ago, that, of course, made it inevitable that there was a certain slip in the time scale. I am hoping that the arrangement to which the Question refers has helped us over that.

Why have the Government broken undertakings given to Parliament on three occasions since 3rd May about British troop withdrawals, and, indeed, the promise that negotiations would be completed by this August? Is it because Washington regards the arrangements as a considerable diplomatic success for America?

My hon. Friend has got it completely wrong. We have never given that assurance to Parliament on any occasion. What we have said is that if we are to maintain this level of forces, then the foreign exchange costs must be offset. We have deferred the date by which that must be done in consideration of having received a series of orders from the Americans which, I repeat, more than meets—certainly they represent as much as—the savings that we could have got over the same period.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he takes to keep himself informed of personnel changes in the Diplomatic Corps in London.

I am kept informed by Diplomatic Representatives in London in accordance with the Vienna Convention.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if in future these arrangements should break down, as they appear to have done in the case of the Iranian Ambassador, it is in no one's interest that he should make a public scene about it?

There seem to be two different views among the Press. If I say nothing I am thought to be keeping silent unwarrantably. If I say anything, it disturbs the Press. The hon. Gentleman, a long way after the event, is really wasting the time of the House on a mere detail taken out of context and, like so many others, totally distorted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will review the present arrangements for East German citizens to obtain visas to enter Great Britain as visitors.

Visa regulations are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The rules governing the issue of temporary travel documents for East Germans are regularly reviewed in the North Atlantic Council.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for reviewing the arrangements whereby East German citizens have to come over to the western part of Britain? Is he aware that people like myself, who hate the Berlin Wall and have told East German Communists so, believe that there is a case for reviewing the present arrangements?

As I said, the arrangements are regularly reviewed. I think it is time that the East Germans also reviewed some of the restrictions which they put on the West.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action Great Britain intends to take at the United Nations and elsewhere over the border clashes between Arab countries and Israel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for reducing tension in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to help avoid further clashes between Israel and her Arab neighbours.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not altered their policy towards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 and that they still regard themselves bound by it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government still considers itself bound by the terms of the tri-partite declaration to guarantee the frontiers of Israel and her neighbours; and if he will now approach the Governments of France and the United States of America with a view to a further joint declaration that no resort to force to alter in either direction the present frontiers between the State of Israel and the neighbouring Arab States will be tolerated.

Again I apologise for the inevitable length of the Answers.

We regard the United Nations as being primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. It is our policy to support the United Nations in fulfilling this task and to support every effort made to improve its peacekeeping machinery. As regards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, it was, mainly, as its official title said, about the supply of arms to Israel and the Arab States. The situation in the area has radically altered since then; several years later, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of arms to the area. But today, as in 1950, we are opposed to an arms race in the Middle East and concerned that there should be peace and stability there. We deplore the use or the threat of force in the area, and subversion, hostile propaganda and terrorism, which have been condemned by many resolutions of the United Nations.

While I appreciate in full the Answer that has been given, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what possibilites there are of reaching real agreement to control the supply of arms to the Middle East and especially the politically explosive places? Can he say whether we are still sending arms to both sides?

We are exercising all the influence we can in the United Nations to bring about a limitation not only of the arms race in that area but also of the tension there. As to the sale of arms, we are keeping them all under control and do nothing which will add to the tension.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are considering the possibility of extending the United Nations Observer Corps along the Syrian-Israeli frontier? Surely that is one way of keeping down tension.

That is a point worth bearing in mind, but it was not along that frontier that the recent trouble occurred.

The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about the 1950 Declaration. Do Her Majesty's Government still regard themselves as being bound by it?

The comments I have made were not only in accord with what we have said but with what Mr. Harold Macmillan said in, I believe, 1963.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say categorically whether Britain will stand by her undertaking, given in concert with her allies, to guarantee the frontiers of Israel?

The situation has changed a good deal since the Tripartite Declaration was made and I repeat that Mr. Macmillan made a statement which superseded it. We have not gone beyond that.

Since the present arms race and the declaration of the Syrian Government that they will pay no regard to the United Nations are creating a most dangerous situation in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend try to promote a meeting at the highest level of the Security Council to secure radical arrangements for bringing this dangerous situation to an end?

Whether that is the appropriate forum, I do not know, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that I will do everything I can. As he knows, in the Security Council recently we played a very prominent part on this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman says that we are trying at the United Nations to assist in the reduction of tension. What specific initiative have the Government taken with the Soviet Union and the United States so as to secure a balanced limitation of arms in this area?

I am not sure that such a possibility exists. There are other causes of the difficulties in the area and we are taking initiatives with them all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the need to reassess British policy towards Eastern European countries.

None specifically. We talked a great deal about Europe. It is generally recognised that this country has been among the leaders in developing relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, and I know I have my hon. Friend's support in that.

I assure my right hon. Friend that he certainly has. Does not he think that the time has come for the normalisation of our relations with East Germany, for example? Should not the policy he put forward at the Labour Party Conference in 1961 now be implemented? Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is something wrong with a policy which prevents peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here, when the leader of the West German Nationalists is allowed to come, apparently, to lecture to university students?

I do not know what inhibits peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here more than the existence of the Wall for which they are responsible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman collaborate with the right hon. Lady in trying to persuade Eastern European countries to have some form of democracy?

Is it intended to make any official reaction to the Bucharest Declaration of the Warsaw Pact countries last July proposing a conference on European security?

I am rather against, as I have often said, the bloc-to-bloc approach. We have initiated, as my predecessor announced, a proposal for a declaration which countries both east and west of the so-called Curtain may join in and we are pursuing that initiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now seek to initiate discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and the United States of America about the situation in West Germany.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on both sides of this House and in the country generally, there has been great concern at the break-through of the N.P.D. in West Germany? Does not he think that he should put forward some proposals to see that history does not repeat itself? Britain cannot stand aside.

The way to avoid history repeating itself is for us not to make the mistakes we made in the 1920s and 1930s. Let us keep the thing in perspective. No one will under-estimate the N.P.D. vote but the democratic vote was over 89 per cent. in Bavaria, for example. The present democratic leaders of Germany are worthy of and should receive all our support.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances have been given to the South African Government about the proposed mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this question during the debate on Rhodesia and in answer to Questions following his statement to the House on 5th December.—[Vol. 737, c. 1070–1.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that South Africa will continue to adhere to its policy of trading with its neighbours so that sanctions will either be ineffective or will have to be enforced, if that is possible? Are not the Government putting themselves in a dangerously exposed position?

It is the hon. Gentleman who is doing that. The United Nations has now made an historic mandatory call upon all member States. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that it would be presumption to start by assuming that certain countries will not honour their obligations as members of the United Nations.

But do we not know that South Africa has said that she will not honour this United Nations instruction? That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman again make it clear that South Africa is, in the Government's mind, excluded from any attempt to enforce sanctions? This he himself has said and I hope that he will repeat it.

The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of not being very much in favour of the United Nations. I am not willing, as he is, to assume that any member State is willing to dishonour its obligations.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do nothing to condone the ill-faith of any member of the United Nations which may repudiate its plain obligation under the Charter?

I will go further. I do not believe that it is a good thing to start by assuming that some member States are willing to dishonour their obligations.

Will the Foreign Secretary face the facts? Have not the South African Government said already that they will not honour this instruction? Have not Her Majesty's Government said that they will not allow these sanctions to be applied to South Africa?

I see now how the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong so often. What he has described as fact is pure hypothesis.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the report, dated March, 1965, by an expert committee appointed by the Security Council to investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of mandatory sanctions? Is he aware that the report stated that their effectiveness must depend wholly on their universality, which must necessarily mean unequal hardship? Is he further aware that the report advocated an international effort to mitigate this hardship, particularly by the United Kingdom?

No, Sir. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect and I will have a look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to control nuclear tests and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.